I’m sorry to do this, but it’s getting to be the time of year when the US Supreme Court hands down most of its decisions for the term… I know that Supreme Court opinions aren’t much fun to read, but that’s a pity, because with the judiciary as political as it’s become, some of the most immediate and often irreversible changes in the structure and character of our citizenship come from the high Court. The end of June can see a lot of constitutional mush in rapid fire…and if you don’t mind mixing metaphors, imagine firing mush rapidly across a room, perhaps through a fan, and you’ll get a picture of what I think we can expect from the big nine this term. One came out today: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, an Indiana case involving a statute which required that voters present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. The problem was, of course, that not everyone has a government-issued photo ID, nor the time nor means to get one, and those people tend to be poorer than those who do. The Court upheld the statute 6-3. More later, once I’ve read the darn thing, or nothing, depending on my level of agreement or outrage. I post it now to emphasize that many of the most important Supreme Court decisions have nothing to do with Roe v. Wade or other newsy constitutional culture wars. We would all do well, I think, to pay a little more attention than good taste would demand to these often boring, always overwritten opinions. The Republican party has…which brings us to where we are today.
Incidentally, the petitioner (that’s Crawford) was represented at oral argument by Paul M. Smith, Amherst College class of 1976.
As for the title, I couldn’t decide between “The Whoosier State,” “The Choosier State” or “Carry Indiana,” nor can I believe that I just admitted as much in writing.
3 responses so far ↓
1 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Apr 28, 2008 at 7:02 pm
You’ve gone too far this time Nathan. To credit your contention that people have neither the time nor the means to get a photo ID in Indiana, would, to borrow a phrase from one of your own, require the willing suspension of disbelief. Indiana gives out photo IDs for free, and if you don’t have time in the course of the year to get one you are more likely lazy than overly hard working. Stevens wrote the opinion anyway. Sorry, but illegal aliens won’t be swinging elections for you in Indiana!
2 Aaron Nathan (anathan10) // Apr 28, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Well, as I said, I haven’t read the opinion, and as a result haven’t formed one of my own (and still haven’t)–I was merely setting out the petitioner’s claim in the case…Okay, so maybe I tipped my hand a little bit. And yes, Stevens wrote the opinion, and I’m sure he’ll be happy to hear that you’re a fan. In any event, I have two quick thoughts:
1) It’s easy to say that it’s easy to get a photo ID, harder to prove that in every case. And “every case” is what matters here–I find the idea, put forth by Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, that a possible “special burden” imposed by the law would be irrelevant to its constitutionality to be sort of silly.
2) Laziness is not enough, as far as I’m concerned, to forfeit a right so fundamental as, say, the right to vote. While I’m on this point, Election Day should be a national holiday.
3 Scott Smith (ssmith09) // Apr 30, 2008 at 1:19 am
Like Mr. Nathan, I haven’t gotten around to reading the opinion, but Linda Greenhouse’s take on Stevens’ opinion seems pretty accurate. Had Stevens not joined the majority, it’s likely Roberts and Kennedy would’ve joined Scalia’s opinion, further closing the possibility of challenging these kinds of laws. Stevens managed to keep it open enough that a later challenge might succeed. In the past two weeks, the man has solidified his position as my favorite justice on the court by declaring the death penalty unconstitutional and still being a baller at 87.
You must log in to post a comment.