[EL] The Strange MI Voting Case

[David A. Holtzman]

What of the obvious offensive implication here, that “black people can’t 
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105812/> vote” (so they need a crutch to 
keep the line moving)?

Isn’t a more important “real concern on election day” that if the 
straight ticket crutch is available, people will be expected to use 
it?And that those who don’t will risk being labeled “uppity?”

If, in another state, a straight ticket device is *instituted* to 
*shorten* wait times at polling places, particularly those where a lot 
of African-Americans vote -- rather than providing more voting booths 
(duh!!) -- wouldn’t that be obscenely outrageous?

Hell, if black people are expected to vote straight-ticket Democratic, 
why not just enter those votes for them in advance, and make them come 
to the polls if they want to vote differently?Seriously, you could do 
that for anybody who registers as a member of a party.(Why waste money 
on giving those people ballots?)Or, in states where you have race data 
in the rolls, you could do it just for poorly-represented racial groups!

When I read this morning that Justice Thomas indicated he would have let 
Michigan eliminate the crutch, at least for this election, I wondered if 
he wasn’t somehow channeling Ward Connerly 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Connerly>.(Do not suggest that black 
people can’t think for themselves as well as others....)

Finally, isn’t it a bit weird to think that for members of a group that 
had to fight -- seriously fight -- to get to the polls, waiting two 
minutes more on line could somehow make voting not worth it?

- David Holtzman



On 9/8/2016 8:56 PM, Rick Hasen wrote:
>
>
>     #SCOTUS Sometimes Decides Even When It Doesn’t Decide: The Strange
>     MI Voting Case <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86369>
>
> Posted onSeptember 8, 2016 8:37 pm 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86369>by*Rick Hasen* 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> It is almost midnight on the East Coast, and we still have no ruling 
> from the Supreme Court on Michigan’s application to allow it to 
> eliminate straight ticket voting 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86158>(a mechanism which allows a 
> person to vote for all party offices with a single vote). A federal 
> court had ruled preliminarily that Michigan’s abandonment of this 
> device (which many states have eliminated) would adversely harm 
> African-American voters, in part by increasing the lines in polling 
> places (maybe by 2 minutes or more per person, a real concern on 
> election day). This looks like a Voting Rights Act violation.
>
> A panel of the Sixth Circuit refused to stay that order (meaning 
> straight ticket voting would remain for November), and the entire 
> Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc refused (on a split vote to get involved).
>
> Michigan rushed to the Supreme Court for relief, and told the Court it 
> needed an answer by today, September 8, in order to know how to print 
> ballot materials. So I, as well as many others, expected the Court 
> would rule today. They usually rule before deadlines like this. I also 
> thought for various reasons 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=86158>Michigan had a very low chance of 
> getting relief on this motion.
>
> So here we are with almost the day over and nothing.
>
> Michigan might be able to stall tomorrow for a few hours if the order 
> does not come by morning (in 2014, we had a Texas voter id ruling and 
> Justice Ginsburg dissent issued at 5 am on the Saturday before early 
> voting was starting in Texas). But it has to treat this as equivalent 
> to the denial of relief from the Supreme Court.
>
> I strongly suspect that the reason for the delay is a dissent from one 
> or more Justices (the likely suspects are Justices Alito and Thomas). 
> After all, if the Court was going to grant relief, it knew it had to 
> do so by the end of September 8.
>
> We will probably know soon enough, but here, deciding not to decide is 
> also deciding.
>
> hare 
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D86369&title=%23SCOTUS%20Sometimes%20Decides%20Even%20When%20It%20Doesn%E2%80%99t%20Decide%3A%20The%20Strange%20MI%20Voting%20Case&description=>
>
> Posted inelection administration 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=18>,Supreme Court 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>,The Voting Wars 
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=60>
>
>
[]
-- 
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com

Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to 
an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in 
error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying 
of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this email 
in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160909/f418b71f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 2021 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160909/f418b71f/attachment.png>