[EL] AR/TX voter id cases

Wed Oct 15 18:51:48 PDT 2014

It's also a big win for a broader proposition:  that state constitutions
are paramount in these state-based right-to-vote disputes.  And the
principle applies more broadly than just in Arkansas because virtually
every state constitution explicitly grants the right to vote to the state's
citizens.  Other state supreme courts should follow Arkansas's lead on this
interpretative method.

I've long advocated
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2234762>for state
courts to construe their explicit constitutional provisions granting the
right to vote more broadly than the narrower federal jurisprudence of the
Equal Protection Clause.  This case shows the importance of state judges in
resolving these disputes by refusing to "lockstep" their state
constitutions to the federal constitution.  State judges resolve tons
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2495078> of these
election related cases, and it's nice to see a state supreme court adopt
this broader theory, which is textually and contextually consistent with
the state constitution.  Arkansas joins Missouri and Pennsylvania in
refusing to lockstep their state constitution with the federal constitution
on right-to-vote questions.  States that have (improperly) construed their
explicit constitutional provisions to be the same as the federal Equal
Protection Clause include Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin (although lower
courts in Wisconsin refused to lockstep), Indiana, and Georgia.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>  I see it as a win because it is on state law grounds and is unlikely to
> be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
>
>
> On 10/15/14, 11:01 PM, Easley, Billy (Paul) wrote:
>
> Big win for opponents of voter id.
>
>  Uh, is it though? As you noted – and the decision makes clear in it’s
> final paragraphs – this is just an issue of interpreting the state
> Constitution. If it doesn’t have any applicability elsewhere beyond
> Arkansas, I fail to see it as a big win against Voter ID as a concept on
> the national level or the rationale for voter ID as a policy whatever your
> opinion of it as a policy matter might be.
>
>   From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 5:50 PM
> To: "law-election at UCI.edu" <law-election at UCI.edu>
> Subject: [EL] AR/TX voter id cases
>
>      Breaking: Arkansas Supreme Court Strikes State Voter ID Law
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66951>
>  Posted on October 15, 2014 2:48 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66951>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> The opinion is here
> <http://posting.arktimes.com/media/pdf/voter_id_opinion.pdf>. The rulings
> are only on state law grounds. The majority found that the ID requirement
> added a new voter “qualification” in violation of the state constitution.
> The concurrence found that the measure was not properly passed by the state
> legislature.
>
> There are no obvious federal constitutional issues in this case, so the
> chances of U.S. Supreme Court review of this case are quite small.
>
> Big win for opponents of voter id.
>  [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66951&title=Breaking%3A%20Arkansas%20Supreme%20Court%20Strikes%20State%20Voter%20ID%20Law&description=>
>   Posted in election administration <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>      Justice Scalia Requests Texas Response in Voter ID Case to SCOTUS
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66949>
>  Posted on October 15, 2014 2:22 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=66949>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Due 5 pm Eastern Thursday, according to Tim Eaton
> <https://twitter.com/TimEaton30/status/522495659438772224>.
>  [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D66949&title=Justice%20Scalia%20Requests%20Texas%20Response%20in%20Voter%20ID%20Case%20to%20SCOTUS&description=>
>   Posted in Supreme Court <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>, The
> Voting Wars <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>, voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>, Voting Rights Act
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=15>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - faxrhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> --
> Rick Hasen
> Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
> UC Irvine School of Law
> 401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
> Irvine, CA 92697-8000949.824.3072 - office949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.eduhttp://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/http://electionlawblog.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>

-- 
Joshua A. Douglas
Robert G. Lawson & William H. Fortune Associate Professor of Law
University of Kentucky College of Law
620 S. Limestone
Lexington, KY 40506
(859) 257-4935
joshuadouglas at uky.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20141015/936a935d/attachment.html>