| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Supreme Court upholds Arizona's photo ID law for elections |
| 2006-10-21 |
| Arizona voters will have to present identification at the polls on Nov. 7 after all. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that Arizona can go ahead with requiring voters to present a photo ID, starting with next month's general election, as part of the Proposition 200 that voters passed in 2004. The ruling overturns an Oct. 5 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which put the voter ID rules on hold this election cycle. The Supreme Court on Friday did not decide whether the new voter ID rules are constitutional. That decision is still pending in federal district court. Instead, the court decided that the 9th Circuit made a procedural error by granting an injunction to put the new rules on hold without waiting for the district court to explain its reasons for not granting an injunction. "The facts in these cases are hotly contested and 'no bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements,' " the Justices wrote. "Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules." The new voter ID rules were passed, in part, to keep illegal immigrants and other non-citizens from voting. Opponents have argued that legal voters, especially the poor and the elderly, might also be disenfranchised because of the rules. In order to cast a ballot at the polls, voters must show a photo ID with current street address or two forms of identification, such as a utility bill or car registration, with name and street address. The 9th Circus is a procedural error. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #2 You can't rent a DVD without some form of ID, but the left want to be able to influence the largest spending entity in the world without any check on entitlement. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles in Blairistan 2006-10-21 13:54 |
| #1 Essentially, the plaintiffs waited until the last few weeks to file for an injunction. They were betting that, given the sclerotic judicial system and a sympathetic Ninth Circuit, it'd come in one form or another. Any appeal would come after the election. BTW, the Ninth didn't issue its four-line statement on the injunction until October 12th. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-10-21 12:59 |