Posner Gets A Big One Right
Monday, April 28th by Robert LoblawCrawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21 (Supreme Court, April 28, 2008)
In January 2007, I reported on this Seventh Circuit decision, in which a divided panel upheld a controversial Indiana law that requires voters to show specific forms of identification at the polls. Advocates of the law argued that it was necessary to combat voter fraud, while opponents argued that the overly strict law was a thinly veiled attempt to disenfranchise traditional Democratic voters like the elderly and the poor.
Judge Posner wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Judge Sykes. Judge Evans dissented, arguing that Indiana didn’t even have a voter fraud problem and in any event, the law was the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to swat a fly off of a glass coffee table. Here’s a link to my earlier coverage.
In the event that judges actually keep track of these things, Posner and Sykes can add another check to their “win” column. Today, the Supreme Court similarly upheld the voter identification requirement, over the dissent of three Justices. And the federal appellate docket just got a little bit lighter: several challenges to similar state laws are pending in other circuits, but Indiana’s law is often described as the strictest voter identification law in the country. So it looks like Crawford is the end of the line for voting rights activitists.
Full coverage of this important ruling is available at Scotus Blog via Rick Hasen’s Election Law Blog.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“In the event that judges actually keep track of these things”
Yes. Judges definitely keep track of these things. My chambers — a district court — keeps constant tabs on the status of pending appeals from our court. My judge also knows exactly what happened every time one of our cases went to the Supreme Court. We are also nervous every time a less competent attorney must defend one of our decisions on appeal.
In short - judges always keep track of their appeals.