Votes don’t grow on trees
Posted by Ron Coleman on April 28, 2008
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS Indiana’s voter ID law: “The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights.” Seems reasonable to me.
Amazingly, it didn’t to three justices.
Why do I have a feeling — without the decision being available yet — I can guess who they [Souter-Stevens-Ginsberg-Breyer] are?
UPDATE: Stevens actually wrote the majority opinion, interestingly. Jack Balkin writes:
In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court continues a trend of using technical doctrines of facial challenges to swat away constitutional litigation and drive questions back to the political process. Whether you think that is a good or a bad thing depends on your view of whether the Indiana legislature was essentially limiting access to the ballot to certain classes of voters in order to help the Republican Party stay in power. If you think that the political process will take care of enfranchising these voters, you need not worry too much about the result. If, on the other hand, you think that the political process is being used to build in advantages for one party over another, there is greater reason to be concerned.
That’s his first paragraph, his topic paragraph. He uses the word “constitutional” once, and never in a substantive way. In other words, Balkin does not like the policy of the U.S. Supreme Court. But he doesn’t seem to have much of a constitutional or legal argument — spot the word “technical”? — to make.