[EL] more on WI voter id/7th Circuit
Rick Hasen
rhasen at law.uci.edu
Fri Sep 12 10:30:39 PDT 2014
[Update <https://twitter.com/news3jessica/status/510475524268126208>:
"@Wisconsin_GAB <https://twitter.com/Wisconsin_GAB>spokesman says 11,815
absentee ballots have already been mailed to WI voters without photo ID
instructions.#news3 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/news3?src=hash>."]
On 9/12/14, 10:06 AM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
> Very Bad Idea to Implement WI Voter ID Just Before the Election
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65382>
>
> Posted onSeptember 12, 2014 10:05 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65382>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I've explained why weshouldn't be surprised
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65380> if the 7th Circuit reverse the
> district court in the Wisconsin voter id case and rejects both the
> constitutional and Voting Rights Act section 2 claims brought against it.
>
> But it sounds like the judgesmay be ready to orde
> <http://www.jsonline.com/news/appeals-panel-questions-why-voter-id-shouldnt-be-in-place-nov-4-b99350157z1-274904111.html>r
> (within days, I'd expect) use of the voter id in this election---which
> has been on hold thanks to the district court order and subject to a
> stay. WI had asked to lift the stay, and the 7th Circuit put
> thatruling on hold<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=64650>pending today's
> hearing.
>
> Making changes in election rules as voting gets underway (think of
> overseas and military voters, for whom the process starts 45 days
> before election) is likely to create a great deal of confusion and
> uncertainty. It is hard enough to administer an election with set
> rules---much less to change the rules midstream.
>
> Here's what the Supreme Court said inPurcell v. Gonzalez
> <imap://rhasen@exchange.uci.edu:993/fetch%3EUID%3E/Trash%3E153075?header=quotebody&part=1.1.2.2&filename=06a375.pdf>,
> when the 9th Circuit put Arizona's voter id law on hold after a
> district court let it go into effect pending a trial on the merits:
>
> Faced with an application to enjoin operation of
> voter identification procedures just weeks before an election,
> the Court of Appeals was required to weigh, in addition to
> the harms attendant upon issuance or nonissuance of an injunction,
> considerations specific to election cases and its own
> institutional procedures. Court orders affecting elections,
> especially conflicting orders, can themselves result in voter
> confusion and consequent incentive to remain away from the polls.
> As an election draws closer, that risk will increase.
>
> That of course was the mirror image of today (district court said the
> id law was ok, appellate cour said no at the last minute). But the
> argument is more compelling going in this direction, where there will
> be a flood of people needing id for this election AND training of
> personnel and others for how to implement the new id laws. This is
> untested and Iagree with the ACLU
> <https://twitter.com/news3jessica/status/510472039514537984>that
> implementing it now would be a disaster.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65382&title=Very%20Bad%20Idea%20to%20Implement%20WI%20Voter%20ID%20Just%20Before%20the%20Election&description=>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,The Voting Wars
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>,voter id
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=9>
>
>
> Don't Be Surprised 7th Circuit Skeptical of Voting Rights Claim in
> Wisconsin Voter ID Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65380>
>
> Posted onSeptember 12, 2014 9:26 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=65380>byRick Hasen
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Here <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60972>is my analysis of the
> district court order.
>
> 3. Both the constitutional law and VRA section 2 claims are
> controversial. On the con law point, the judge purports to apply
> the "Anderson-Burdick" balancing test that the Supreme Court
> applied in upholding Indiana's voter id law in the
> /Crawford/ case. The judge purports to apply /Crawford/, but
> reaches a different result. It is not clear that this is a fair
> application of that test--which seems to suggest at most that the
> law be upheld as to most voters but create an "as applied"
> exemption for a specific class of voters. The judge said that this
> was not practical in this case given the large number of Wisconsin
> voters who lack id. It is not clear that the appellate courts
> will agree.
>
> 4. On the VRA issue, this is the first full ruling on how to
> adjudicate voter id vote denial cases under section 2. The key
> test appears on page 52 of the pdf: "Based on the text, then, I
> conclude that Section 2 protects against a voting practice that
> creates a barrier to voting that is more likely to appear in the
> path of a voter if that voter is a member of a minority group than
> if he or she is not. The presence of a barrier that has this kind
> of disproportionate impact prevents the political process from
> being 'equally open' to all and results in members of the minority
> group having 'less opportunity' to participate in the political
> process and to elect representatives of their choice." The judge
> also approaches the causation/results question in a
> straightforward way. It is not clear whether the appellate courts
> will agree or not agree with this approach, which would seem to
> put a number of electoral processes which burden poor and minority
> voters up for possible VRA liability.
>
> In sum, this is a huge victory for voter id opponents. But time
> will tell if this ruling survives.
>
> Share
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D65380&title=Don%E2%80%99t%20Be%20Surprised%207th%20Circuit%20Skeptical%20of%20Voting%20Rights%20Claim%20in%20Wisconsin%20Voter%20ID%20Case&description=>
> Posted inelection administration
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,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 92697-8000
> 949.824.3072 - office
> 949.824.0495 - fax
> rhasen at law.uci.edu
> http://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
--
Rick Hasen
Chancellor's Professor of Law and Political Science
UC Irvine School of Law
401 E. Peltason Dr., Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
949.824.3072 - office
949.824.0495 - fax
rhasen at law.uci.edu
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/hasen/
http://electionlawblog.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140912/a19b2da4/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20140912/a19b2da4/attachment.png>
View list directory