HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » BREAKING: Federal Judge S... » Reply #19

Response to Hissyspit (Original post)

Tue Apr 29, 2014, 03:44 PM

19. Here is a good explanation of this opinion from Professor Hasen

Prof. Hasen is an expert on election law. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=60972
Here are my initial thoughts on Frank v. Walker, in which a federal district court held that Wisconsin’s voter id law both violates the Constitution and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:

1. This is about the best possible opinion that opponents of voter identification laws could have hoped for. It is heavy on both facts and on law. It is thoughtful and well written. It finds that a voter id law serves neither an anti-fraud purposes (because “virtually no voter impersonation occurs in Wisconsin and it is exceedingly unlikely that voter impersonation will become a problem in Wisconsin in the foreseeable future”) nor voter confidence purposes. It finds that it burdens lots of voters (up to 300,000) voters. It finds these burdens fall especially on Black and Latino voters and that the reason is does is poverty, which is itself the result of prior legal discrimination.It enjoins enforcement of the law for everyone, and expresses considerable doubt that the Wisconsin legislature could amend the law to make it constitutional. It is about as strong a statement as one might imagine as to the problems the voter id law.

2. Wisconsin is likely to appeal, and it is unclear how the case will fare in the 7th Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court. (Further making this complicated is that there are state case putting voter id on hold and now pending before the State Supreme Court.) A special twist is that Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit made controversial remarks about voter id laws being a means of voter suppression, and expressing regret about his earlier decision in the Indiana voter id case. It is not clear what role, if any, he will play in any appeal.

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 proponents. But time will tell if this ruling survives.

I would love to see Judge Posner on the panel that hears this case so that he can undo some of the damage done in the Crawford case.

This case will be used in the Texas voter id case.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Hissyspit Apr 2014 OP
NYC_SKP Apr 2014 #1
calimary Apr 2014 #2
jwirr Apr 2014 #3
hue Apr 2014 #4
Robbins Apr 2014 #5
benld74 Apr 2014 #6
Plucketeer Apr 2014 #7
Jefferson23 Apr 2014 #8
chknltl Apr 2014 #9
Ash_F Apr 2014 #10
Gothmog Apr 2014 #14
AverageJoe90 Apr 2014 #11
Gothmog Apr 2014 #12
Gothmog Apr 2014 #13
postulater Apr 2014 #15
Lifelong Protester Apr 2014 #16
H2O Man Apr 2014 #17
mwyn8 Apr 2014 #18
riqster Apr 2014 #27
PatrynXX Apr 2014 #42
LineReply Here is a good explanation of this opinion from Professor Hasen
Gothmog Apr 2014 #19
Dustlawyer Apr 2014 #28
Gothmog Apr 2014 #30
Dustlawyer Apr 2014 #37
PatrynXX Apr 2014 #43
HuskyOffset Apr 2014 #47
Gothmog Apr 2014 #51
HuskyOffset May 2014 #53
Stallion Apr 2014 #20
3catwoman3 Apr 2014 #21
malthaussen Apr 2014 #22
Blue Owl Apr 2014 #23
myrna minx Apr 2014 #24
unionthug777 Apr 2014 #25
Judi Lynn Apr 2014 #26
SummerSnow Apr 2014 #29
Scuba Apr 2014 #31
Cha Apr 2014 #32
hue Apr 2014 #33
sheshe2 Apr 2014 #34
BumRushDaShow Apr 2014 #35
Iwillnevergiveup Apr 2014 #36
AllyCat Apr 2014 #38
RedRoses323 Apr 2014 #39
madville Apr 2014 #40
Princess Turandot Apr 2014 #45
madville Apr 2014 #50
LanternWaste May 2014 #54
madville May 2014 #55
RandySF Sep 2018 #56
RainDog Apr 2014 #41
Dark n Stormy Knight Apr 2014 #44
sakabatou Apr 2014 #46
nikto Apr 2014 #48
madville Apr 2014 #49
Jimbo S Apr 2014 #52
Please login to view edit histories.