By
A divided U.S. Supreme Court blocked Wisconsin's voter ID law late Thursday, issuing a terse yet dramatic one-page ruling less than four weeks before the Nov. 4 election.
The 6-3 vote means in all likelihood the requirement to show ID at the polls will not be in effect for the election. But Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he would seek ways to reinstate the law within the month.
Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans approved the law in 2011, but it was quickly blocked by a series of court decisions in four lawsuits. It was reinstated by a federal appeals court in recent weeks, but Thursday's ruling again put the law on hold.
"That is great news, wonderful news," Milwaukee NAACP chapter President James Hall said. "I think it's gratifying that the court has seen fit to block the implementation of this law that would most certainly create chaos and confusion in this election."
Critics of the new law complained that the state would not be able to train poll workers, inform voters and distribute IDs to those who would need them to vote.
But Van Hollen said his office "will be exploring alternatives to address the court's concern and have voter ID on election day."
"I believe the voter ID law is constitutional, and nothing in the court's order suggests otherwise," the second-term Republican said in his statement.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said he was surprised by the high court's action. "It's disappointing," Vos said. "It's broadly supported by the public. We showed in every way possible we could handle it. It's a common sense idea that should go forward."
Ruling to block the voter ID law for this election were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor.
Dissenting were Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Those in the majority did not explain their rationale.
The dissenters wrote they were troubled that some absentee ballots had already gone out without voters being told they needed to provide copies of their IDs for their votes to count. But the dissenters wrote the court could not vacate the appeals court's ruling unless it was clear that court had erred.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled the law could go into place for the upcoming election as it considered whether the voter ID requirement was constitutional — a ruling that surprised both supporters and opponents of the voter ID law.
The panel followed that decision up with its final ruling Monday that upheld the voter ID law in its entirety.
After the appeals court first ruled the law could go into effect last month, opponents of the voter ID filed an emergency request to Kagan to block the law, arguing there wasn't enough time for voters and clerks to prepare for the measure with just weeks before the election.
Kagan is the justice responsible for emergency petitions in the 7th Circuit, which covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. She then took the case to the full Supreme Court, which issued its ruling Thursday that blocks the law at least until the court decides whether to take the case.
Larry Dupuis, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said the plaintiffs now have 90 days to file a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to review the decision by the appeals court panel.
That means, Dupuis said, that there will be no further action by the courts between now and the election. The state and national ACLU are representing the plaintiffs.
"We are obviously overjoyed," Dupuis said. "But, even more importantly, we're relieved that we're not going to have the mess that we would have had if this had gone into effect."
U.S. Supreme Court observers have expected the justices to take up the issue of voter ID at some point. Thursday's ruling sets up the possibility that it will be Wisconsin's law they decide to review.
Wisconsin's voter ID law was in place for one election — a low turnout primary in February 2012 — before it was blocked by a series of court orders in four cases. Two of the challenges were in state court and two in federal court.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the voter ID law this summer in the two state cases, but modified how the state Division of Motor Vehicles handles ID requests from people who don't have birth certificates. The law remained blocked at that time because of the federal litigation, however.
A top Walker official said late Thursday that the GOP governor stands by the voter ID law.
"While we understand the need for awareness about the law, we think it is important voter ID is implemented, so voters can have confidence in the electoral process," said Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick. "We are confident the law will ultimately be upheld."
Walker's opponent, Democrat Mary Burke, has opposed the legislation.
"Regardless of your politics, we can all agree that the greater the level of participation in elections, the better it is for our state," said Burke spokesman Joe Zepecki.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett — who ran unsuccessfully against Walker twice — said "more than anything, this was a decision on the timing of the change."
"I don't think you can read anything into how this court would view the merits of the photo ID requirement," he said. "What was particularly troubling (to the court) was having a change this dramatic this close to the election."
A divided U.S. Supreme Court blocked Wisconsin's voter ID law late Thursday, issuing a terse yet dramatic one-page ruling less than four weeks before the Nov. 4 election.
The 6-3 vote means in all likelihood the requirement to show ID at the polls will not be in effect for the election. But Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he would seek ways to reinstate the law within the month.
Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow Republicans approved the law in 2011, but it was quickly blocked by a series of court decisions in four lawsuits. It was reinstated by a federal appeals court in recent weeks, but Thursday's ruling again put the law on hold.
"That is great news, wonderful news," Milwaukee NAACP chapter President James Hall said. "I think it's gratifying that the court has seen fit to block the implementation of this law that would most certainly create chaos and confusion in this election."
Critics of the new law complained that the state would not be able to train poll workers, inform voters and distribute IDs to those who would need them to vote.
But Van Hollen said his office "will be exploring alternatives to address the court's concern and have voter ID on election day."
"I believe the voter ID law is constitutional, and nothing in the court's order suggests otherwise," the second-term Republican said in his statement.
Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said he was surprised by the high court's action. "It's disappointing," Vos said. "It's broadly supported by the public. We showed in every way possible we could handle it. It's a common sense idea that should go forward."
Ruling to block the voter ID law for this election were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor.
Dissenting were Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Those in the majority did not explain their rationale.
The dissenters wrote they were troubled that some absentee ballots had already gone out without voters being told they needed to provide copies of their IDs for their votes to count. But the dissenters wrote the court could not vacate the appeals court's ruling unless it was clear that court had erred.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled the law could go into place for the upcoming election as it considered whether the voter ID requirement was constitutional — a ruling that surprised both supporters and opponents of the voter ID law.
The panel followed that decision up with its final ruling Monday that upheld the voter ID law in its entirety.
After the appeals court first ruled the law could go into effect last month, opponents of the voter ID filed an emergency request to Kagan to block the law, arguing there wasn't enough time for voters and clerks to prepare for the measure with just weeks before the election.
Kagan is the justice responsible for emergency petitions in the 7th Circuit, which covers Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana. She then took the case to the full Supreme Court, which issued its ruling Thursday that blocks the law at least until the court decides whether to take the case.
Larry Dupuis, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin, said the plaintiffs now have 90 days to file a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to review the decision by the appeals court panel.
That means, Dupuis said, that there will be no further action by the courts between now and the election. The state and national ACLU are representing the plaintiffs.
"We are obviously overjoyed," Dupuis said. "But, even more importantly, we're relieved that we're not going to have the mess that we would have had if this had gone into effect."
U.S. Supreme Court observers have expected the justices to take up the issue of voter ID at some point. Thursday's ruling sets up the possibility that it will be Wisconsin's law they decide to review.
Wisconsin's voter ID law was in place for one election — a low turnout primary in February 2012 — before it was blocked by a series of court orders in four cases. Two of the challenges were in state court and two in federal court.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the voter ID law this summer in the two state cases, but modified how the state Division of Motor Vehicles handles ID requests from people who don't have birth certificates. The law remained blocked at that time because of the federal litigation, however.
A top Walker official said late Thursday that the GOP governor stands by the voter ID law.
"While we understand the need for awareness about the law, we think it is important voter ID is implemented, so voters can have confidence in the electoral process," said Walker spokeswoman Laurel Patrick. "We are confident the law will ultimately be upheld."
Walker's opponent, Democrat Mary Burke, has opposed the legislation.
"Regardless of your politics, we can all agree that the greater the level of participation in elections, the better it is for our state," said Burke spokesman Joe Zepecki.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett — who ran unsuccessfully against Walker twice — said "more than anything, this was a decision on the timing of the change."
"I don't think you can read anything into how this court would view the merits of the photo ID requirement," he said. "What was particularly troubling (to the court) was having a change this dramatic this close to the election."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.