Tag Archives: Voter Suppression

Voter ID

While most of what the Republicans are proposing to suppress the vote is very unpopular (even among Republican voters) and most of the Democratic proposals in the For the People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1) are very popular (even among Republican voters), the one voter suppression tool that gets a lot of popular support is requiring voters to have ID.  It is easy to understand why this proposal is popular.  People are used to having to present their ID for a variety of circumstances.  So presenting it to vote does not seem like a big deal to people who have government-issued ID (which is the vast majority of people).  And most people will not look past the initial “common sense” aspect of requiring voters to have ID to look at the real issues.

First, while there are a variety of circumstances for which we have to present ID, the reason for producing ID is different for these situations.  And that determines what needs to be done by the people looking at the ID.  For example, many of us remember our misspent youth when we had to produce IDs at bars and restaurants if we wanted to purchase an intoxicating beverage.  The bar requires us to produce an ID because they are facing potential criminal charges if they sell to a minor.  If they check ID, they can prove that they did not knowingly sell to a minor.  So they are simply checking that the photo matches the person in front of them and that the ID shows that the person is at least 21.  They do not care if you really are John Doe, III, or Leia Smith.  Unless the ID is an obvious forgery, they are fine.

On the other hand, the bank or the car dealership wants to know that the person buying the car or opening an account is really Jane Roe.  They are not merely checking the ID to see that the photo matches the person in front of them; they are also making a copy so that they have a record just in case the ID is a fake. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , Comments Off on Voter ID

Supreme Court 2017-18 Term Preview: Part II (November Arguments)

In Part I of this year’s Supreme Court preview, we took a look at the ten cases set for argument during the first two weeks of October.  Currently, for it’s six-day November argument session (which actually begins on October 30), the Supreme Court has eight cases.

Unlike October in which seven cases have the potential to generate headlines or impact elections or major policy issues, November looks a lot less intense.  The first week is one of those technical weeks that matter mostly to the parties and the attorneys who practice in an area — two cases dealing with the procedure for federal habeas practice (the review of state court decisions by the federal courts), one case deals with bankruptcy issues, and one case deals with the tolling of state law claims while a related federal claim is pending.  The second week starts with another two technical cases — another bankruptcy issue and a case on the disclosure requirements for companies that have publicly traded stocks and bonds (focusing mostly on when an incomplete disclosure is misleading).

The last two cases — set for November 7 and November 8 — respectively are the big political cases of the November argument session.  The first case (Patchak) involves what appears to be a growing trend — Congress passing laws to deal with pending cases.   In this case, after federal courts had found that plaintiff’s had raised colorable claims (i.e. ones that, if true, would entitle him to relief), Congress passed a law directing that the courts to dismiss the case.  While Congress does have some authority to change the laws governing certain types of claims or the procedural rules that apply to claims, the rules are a little bit less clear when Congress tries to direct the judgment in a specific case.  Adding to the complicating factors, the case involves the U.S. government taking land into trust for a tribe.  While the merits of whether the land properly belongs to the tribe is technically not the issue at this stage of the case, that may play some role in the analysis. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , Comments Off on Supreme Court 2017-18 Term Preview: Part II (November Arguments)