Read the fucking case. Also, Bob's comment was not about this, so please try to keep up.
You know, last time this went to the Supreme Court, voter ID was found to be OK.
Mainly because in a state wide, 2 year trial, the opponents were unable to produce sufficient* cases of disenfranchisement as a result of the law.
*And by "sufficient", I mean one single case, in an entire state.
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Crawford_v_Marion_County_Election_Bd_553_US_181_128_S_Ct_1610_170?1472830820
After discovery, District Judge Barker prepared a comprehensive 70-page opinion explaining her decision to grant defendants' motion for summary judgment. She found that petitioners had "not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements."
...
Next, noting the absence of any plaintiffs who claimed that the law would deter them from voting, the Court of Appeals inferred that "the motivation for the suit is simply that the law may require the Democratic Party and the other organizational plaintiffs to work harder to get every last one of their supporters to the polls."
Next up...but...but...some conservative court ruled for the Republicans...majority opinion quoted above that of Justice John Paul Stevens. One of the most liberal justices to ever serve.
Show Posts
2 Likes
