Posted: Aug 5, 2008 11:23 PM CDT
HUNTSVILLE, Texas (CNN/KXAN) -- Jose Ernesto Medellin has been executed by lethal injection, according to Texas prison officials. Corrections spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said Medellin died at 9:57 CT.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the last-ditch appeal of a Mexican national on Texas' death row late Tuesday, paving the way for him to be executed for a pair of brutal slayings, state corrections officials said.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokeswoman Michelle Lyons said about 9:15 p.m. that the court had turned down the appeal of Jose Ernesto Medellin. At 9:48 p.m. Governor Perry released a statement, "After reviewing all of the facts in what is the most gruesome death penalty case I have reviewed since being in office, I have decided not to grant Jose Medellin a 30-day reprieve."
Medellin's capital appeal was an unusual one that pitted President Bush against his home state in a dispute over federal authority, local sovereignty and foreign treaties. At issue is an international court's ruling that Medellin and about 50 other Mexicans have been illegally denied access to their home country's consul. Allowing travelers such access when they are arrested abroad is common practice.
"Today the United States has stumbled in its commitment to the rule of law," said Donald Francis Donovan of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, counsel to Medellín. "With this action, our nation has broken a commitment willingly made by our President and our Senate when we agreed to this treaty. We must now hope that other nations stand stronger in their promises than we do, lest our own citizens be placed at risk elsewhere."
Medellín was one of 51 Mexican nationals who did not receive consular access at the time of arrest as required by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a treaty ratified by the United States, ensures the rights of foreign nationals to be notified of their right to consular access without delay and guarantees that consulates can assist their citizens abroad.
Congress has begun the process of enacting legislation. On July 14th, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives introduced H.R. 6481, the "Avena Case Implementation Act of 2008" in order to implement the ICJ's Avena judgment. This legislation empowers the federal courts to hear the Vienna Convention claims of foreign nationals who were not advised of their consular rights, including the Mexican nationals named in the Avena judgment. The legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration, and can be taken up when Congress returns to Washington after its August recess.
The Bush White House typically backs states in their power to carry out executions, but Justice Department officials said that in these instances, the president's power to conduct foreign policy outweighed states' interests. The Supreme Court originally heard the Medellin case in 2005 but did not rule on the merits. It waited instead for lower courts to resolve the federalism angle before rehearing the appeal in October.
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
August 5, 2008
June 24, 2008
Court OK's border fence despite environmental worry
By EILEEN SULLIVAN – 6 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it won't stand in the way as the U.S. extends its security fence hundreds of miles along the border with Mexico, allowing building to proceed full-speed despite claims that it harms the environment and animals who live in the area.
In a second case mixing national security and the environment — and a second dose of potentially good news for the Bush administration — the justices agreed to consider an appeals court ruling that limits the Navy's use of sonar off the Southern California coast because of potential harm to dolphins and whales.
Given sporadic attention for years, the concept of a border fence took on new life after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which also revived the nation's heated immigration debate. Intelligence officials have said the holes along the southwest border could provide places for terrorists to enter the country.
On Monday, the court declined to hear arguments in a case brought by environmental groups that could have slowed or even halted the multibillion-dollar fence project that stretches from the Pacific surf at Tijuana to the Gulf of Mexico near Brownsville, Texas. Some 331 miles of fencing had been constructed as of June 13, with about as much still to go.
The case involved a two-mile section of fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. The section has already been built. Environmentalists have said the fence puts already endangered species such as two types of wild cats — the ocelot and the jaguarundi — in even more danger. The fence would prevent them from swimming across the Rio Grande to mate.
Fourteen House Democrats — including seven committee chairs — had filed a brief in support of the environmentalists' appeal.
"Without a comprehensive plan, this fence is just another quick fix," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., one of the signers. Thompson chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.
On the other side, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said the outcome "was a victory for common sense ... and it was a victory for Americans who want secure borders." King wrote the 2006 law that called for hundreds of miles of fencing.
So far, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has waived more than 40 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest border. Administration officials have said that invoking the legal waivers — which Congress authorized in 1996 and 2005 laws — will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that would otherwise stand in the way of construction.
The fence faces other legal challenges. Currently there are two class action lawsuits against property condemnation and four District Court cases challenging environmental actions, according to Homeland Security.
An environmental lawsuit stopped construction of a border fence in San Diego in the late 1990s. Because of this, in 2005 Congress gave the administration wide-reaching power to waive environmental and other laws that could stand in the way.
The fact that the Supreme Court would not take up the Arizona environmental challenge does not mean other lawsuits don't have a chance, said Celestino Gallegos, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. Gallegos' organization has worked with many South Texas landowners who face condemnation. The landowners argue that the government did not properly consult with landowners before filing condemnation lawsuits. The fencing plan affects about 480 landowners.
Defenders of Wildlife attorney Brian Segee said there are "serious constitutional problems" with the law Congress passed in 2005, "which places the unprecedented and extraordinary power with one individual, the secretary of homeland security, to pick and choose which laws apply along the southern border."
Russ Knocke, a spokesman for Homeland Security, said, "As fence construction proceeds, the department will continue to be a good steward of the environment, and consult with appropriate state, local, and tribal officials."
In the second case Monday, the justices, acting at the administration's urging, agreed to review a federal appeals court ruling that limits the use of sonar in naval training exercises.
Sonar, which the Navy uses primarily to locate enemy submarines at sea, can interfere with marine mammals' ability to navigate and communicate.
The administration says the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco could cripple the Navy's ability to train sailors and Marines for service in wartime.
The government also says that its use of mid-frequency sonar in training exercises hasn't caused any documented harm to dolphins or been proven to be involved in the beaching of whales — and that national security can trump other interests in some cases anyway.
Some environmentalists said the Supreme Court's hearing of the case could finally settle what takes precedence — national security or environmental protection.
Although the science is inconclusive, there is strong evidence that sonar affects marine mammals. The Navy's environmental assessment of the use of sonar in 14 training exercises off the California coast found it could disturb or harm an estimated 170,000 marine mammals, including causing temporary loss of hearing in at least 8,000 whales.
The case will be heard next fall.
In what is likely to be its final week before a long summer recess, the court has yet to resolve three major outstanding cases — the consideration of Americans' gun rights, whether Exxon Mobil Corp. must pay punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty on people convicted of raping children.
The court will meet again on Wednesday.
Associated Press writers Arthur H. Rotstein, Mark Sherman and Christopher Sherman contributed to this report. Christopher Sherman reported from Texas, and Rotstein reported from Arizona.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it won't stand in the way as the U.S. extends its security fence hundreds of miles along the border with Mexico, allowing building to proceed full-speed despite claims that it harms the environment and animals who live in the area.
In a second case mixing national security and the environment — and a second dose of potentially good news for the Bush administration — the justices agreed to consider an appeals court ruling that limits the Navy's use of sonar off the Southern California coast because of potential harm to dolphins and whales.
Given sporadic attention for years, the concept of a border fence took on new life after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which also revived the nation's heated immigration debate. Intelligence officials have said the holes along the southwest border could provide places for terrorists to enter the country.
On Monday, the court declined to hear arguments in a case brought by environmental groups that could have slowed or even halted the multibillion-dollar fence project that stretches from the Pacific surf at Tijuana to the Gulf of Mexico near Brownsville, Texas. Some 331 miles of fencing had been constructed as of June 13, with about as much still to go.
The case involved a two-mile section of fence in the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area near Naco, Ariz. The section has already been built. Environmentalists have said the fence puts already endangered species such as two types of wild cats — the ocelot and the jaguarundi — in even more danger. The fence would prevent them from swimming across the Rio Grande to mate.
Fourteen House Democrats — including seven committee chairs — had filed a brief in support of the environmentalists' appeal.
"Without a comprehensive plan, this fence is just another quick fix," said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., one of the signers. Thompson chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.
On the other side, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., said the outcome "was a victory for common sense ... and it was a victory for Americans who want secure borders." King wrote the 2006 law that called for hundreds of miles of fencing.
So far, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has waived more than 40 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest border. Administration officials have said that invoking the legal waivers — which Congress authorized in 1996 and 2005 laws — will cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that would otherwise stand in the way of construction.
The fence faces other legal challenges. Currently there are two class action lawsuits against property condemnation and four District Court cases challenging environmental actions, according to Homeland Security.
An environmental lawsuit stopped construction of a border fence in San Diego in the late 1990s. Because of this, in 2005 Congress gave the administration wide-reaching power to waive environmental and other laws that could stand in the way.
The fact that the Supreme Court would not take up the Arizona environmental challenge does not mean other lawsuits don't have a chance, said Celestino Gallegos, an attorney with Texas RioGrande Legal Aid. Gallegos' organization has worked with many South Texas landowners who face condemnation. The landowners argue that the government did not properly consult with landowners before filing condemnation lawsuits. The fencing plan affects about 480 landowners.
Defenders of Wildlife attorney Brian Segee said there are "serious constitutional problems" with the law Congress passed in 2005, "which places the unprecedented and extraordinary power with one individual, the secretary of homeland security, to pick and choose which laws apply along the southern border."
Russ Knocke, a spokesman for Homeland Security, said, "As fence construction proceeds, the department will continue to be a good steward of the environment, and consult with appropriate state, local, and tribal officials."
In the second case Monday, the justices, acting at the administration's urging, agreed to review a federal appeals court ruling that limits the use of sonar in naval training exercises.
Sonar, which the Navy uses primarily to locate enemy submarines at sea, can interfere with marine mammals' ability to navigate and communicate.
The administration says the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco could cripple the Navy's ability to train sailors and Marines for service in wartime.
The government also says that its use of mid-frequency sonar in training exercises hasn't caused any documented harm to dolphins or been proven to be involved in the beaching of whales — and that national security can trump other interests in some cases anyway.
Some environmentalists said the Supreme Court's hearing of the case could finally settle what takes precedence — national security or environmental protection.
Although the science is inconclusive, there is strong evidence that sonar affects marine mammals. The Navy's environmental assessment of the use of sonar in 14 training exercises off the California coast found it could disturb or harm an estimated 170,000 marine mammals, including causing temporary loss of hearing in at least 8,000 whales.
The case will be heard next fall.
In what is likely to be its final week before a long summer recess, the court has yet to resolve three major outstanding cases — the consideration of Americans' gun rights, whether Exxon Mobil Corp. must pay punitive damages for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 and the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty on people convicted of raping children.
The court will meet again on Wednesday.
Associated Press writers Arthur H. Rotstein, Mark Sherman and Christopher Sherman contributed to this report. Christopher Sherman reported from Texas, and Rotstein reported from Arizona.
June 21, 2008
U.S. still in talks to delay Mexicans' executions, lawyers say
U.S. still in talks to delay Mexicans' executions, lawyers say
June 20, 2008 - 4:40PM
Jeremy Roebuck
The Bush administration's "extraordinary" effort to comply with an international court order granting new hearings for 51 Mexican nationals on death row has been stymied by federal laws, U.S. State Department lawyers said Friday.
"The issue of capital punishment arouses deep feelings," said State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger III, according to transcripts filed with the court. "But this is not about the death penalty."
Bellinger told the International Court of Justice -- the principal judicial organ of the United Nations -- that while the administration understands its obligation to abide by the court's rulings, current U.S. law does not require individual states to follow suit.
His arguments came during the second day of hearings at The Hague in a case that has aggravated relations between the nation and its southern neighbor and put the president in a tight spot with the state he calls home.
In 2003, the world court ordered the United States to grant new reviews for the Mexicans after finding that local law enforcement had not told the men about their right to contact their consulates after their arrests.
But Mexico returned to the panel this week saying officials in the United States had not done enough to ensure those hearings happened.
Texas, in particular, seems to be willfully disregarding the international court by setting an Aug. 5 execution date for one of the men -- Jose Ernesto Medellin.
The state's courts could schedule executions for four others -- including two sentenced to die for crimes committed in Hidalgo County -- before the end of the summer, said Joel Antonio Hernandez Garcia, legal adviser to Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
But when arguing before the court Friday, Hernandez was careful to point out that his country is only asking for new hearings to determine whether the lack of consular involvement may have affected the outcome of their trials.
"Nowhere are (we) requesting Texas refrain from executing Mr. Medellin," he said. "Nowhere does it ask the governor to grant a reprieve."
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under current federal law, individual states are under no obligation to obey international treaties -- such as the one establishing the international court's jurisdiction. And while Congress could pass legislation that would force the states to obey, it has not done so yet.
Still, U.S. officials continue to negotiate with Texas in an effort to ensure compliance, Bellinger said.
The State and Justice departments urged Gov. Rick Perry last week to grant the court-ordered reviews and floated the idea of a panel of outside judges who could review the Mexicans' cases and make recommendations to Texas' clemency board.
The Bush administration has also asked the state to hold off on Medellin's execution until the matter is resolved.
"The president is a former governor of Texas and that made it politically difficult for him to order his former state" to deviate from its regular judicial procedure, Bellinger said. "Especially (in a case involving) a confessed murderer and rapist of two young girls."
After proceedings ended Friday, court staff said the justices were sensitive to the need to act quickly and would decide whether to issue an injunction soon. But they could not project when their decision might be forthcoming.
____
Jeremy Roebuck covers courts and general assignments for The Monitor. You can reach him at (956) 683-4437.
http://www.themonitor.com/common/printer/view.php?db=monitortx&id=13430
June 20, 2008 - 4:40PM
Jeremy Roebuck
The Bush administration's "extraordinary" effort to comply with an international court order granting new hearings for 51 Mexican nationals on death row has been stymied by federal laws, U.S. State Department lawyers said Friday.
"The issue of capital punishment arouses deep feelings," said State Department legal adviser John B. Bellinger III, according to transcripts filed with the court. "But this is not about the death penalty."
Bellinger told the International Court of Justice -- the principal judicial organ of the United Nations -- that while the administration understands its obligation to abide by the court's rulings, current U.S. law does not require individual states to follow suit.
His arguments came during the second day of hearings at The Hague in a case that has aggravated relations between the nation and its southern neighbor and put the president in a tight spot with the state he calls home.
In 2003, the world court ordered the United States to grant new reviews for the Mexicans after finding that local law enforcement had not told the men about their right to contact their consulates after their arrests.
But Mexico returned to the panel this week saying officials in the United States had not done enough to ensure those hearings happened.
Texas, in particular, seems to be willfully disregarding the international court by setting an Aug. 5 execution date for one of the men -- Jose Ernesto Medellin.
The state's courts could schedule executions for four others -- including two sentenced to die for crimes committed in Hidalgo County -- before the end of the summer, said Joel Antonio Hernandez Garcia, legal adviser to Mexico's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
But when arguing before the court Friday, Hernandez was careful to point out that his country is only asking for new hearings to determine whether the lack of consular involvement may have affected the outcome of their trials.
"Nowhere are (we) requesting Texas refrain from executing Mr. Medellin," he said. "Nowhere does it ask the governor to grant a reprieve."
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under current federal law, individual states are under no obligation to obey international treaties -- such as the one establishing the international court's jurisdiction. And while Congress could pass legislation that would force the states to obey, it has not done so yet.
Still, U.S. officials continue to negotiate with Texas in an effort to ensure compliance, Bellinger said.
The State and Justice departments urged Gov. Rick Perry last week to grant the court-ordered reviews and floated the idea of a panel of outside judges who could review the Mexicans' cases and make recommendations to Texas' clemency board.
The Bush administration has also asked the state to hold off on Medellin's execution until the matter is resolved.
"The president is a former governor of Texas and that made it politically difficult for him to order his former state" to deviate from its regular judicial procedure, Bellinger said. "Especially (in a case involving) a confessed murderer and rapist of two young girls."
After proceedings ended Friday, court staff said the justices were sensitive to the need to act quickly and would decide whether to issue an injunction soon. But they could not project when their decision might be forthcoming.
____
Jeremy Roebuck covers courts and general assignments for The Monitor. You can reach him at (956) 683-4437.
http://www.themonitor.com/common/printer/view.php?db=monitortx&id=13430
June 16, 2008
National: Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US
Top court eases rules for foreigners to try to stay in US
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally.
The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States.
The decision essentially embraced a proposed Justice Department regulation governing the treatment of similar cases in the future.
Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, stayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. He married an American the following year and soon began trying to obtain a visa as an immediate relative of a citizen. But Dada and his wife apparently failed to submit some documents, causing immigration officials to deny the visa.
Dada has been trying again to obtain the visa, but immigration authorities meanwhile have ordered him to leave the country.
He agreed to leave voluntarily, which would allow him to try sooner to re-enter the country legally than if he had been deported.
The court's task was to decide whether he could withdraw his voluntary agreement to leave the country and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States.
Immigration authorities recently ruled that Dada had entered a "sham" marriage in order to stay in the United States, but that finding was not part of the court's consideration.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four liberal colleagues. The four conservative justice dissented.
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "The court lacks the authority to impose its chosen remedy."
The case is Dada v. Mukasey, 06-1181.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it easier Monday for some foreigners who overstay their visas to seek to remain in the United States legally.
The court ruled 5-4 Monday that someone who is here illegally may withdraw his voluntarily agreement to depart and continue to try to get approval to remain in the United States.
The decision essentially embraced a proposed Justice Department regulation governing the treatment of similar cases in the future.
Samson Dada, a Nigerian citizen, stayed beyond the expiration of his tourist visa in 1998. He married an American the following year and soon began trying to obtain a visa as an immediate relative of a citizen. But Dada and his wife apparently failed to submit some documents, causing immigration officials to deny the visa.
Dada has been trying again to obtain the visa, but immigration authorities meanwhile have ordered him to leave the country.
He agreed to leave voluntarily, which would allow him to try sooner to re-enter the country legally than if he had been deported.
The court's task was to decide whether he could withdraw his voluntary agreement to leave the country and continue to try to adjust his status while in the United States.
Immigration authorities recently ruled that Dada had entered a "sham" marriage in order to stay in the United States, but that finding was not part of the court's consideration.
Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four liberal colleagues. The four conservative justice dissented.
Justice Antonin Scalia said, "The court lacks the authority to impose its chosen remedy."
The case is Dada v. Mukasey, 06-1181.
April 29, 2008
Supreme Court upholds voter ID law
Supreme Court upholds voter ID law
Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process
updated 8:50 a.m. PT, Mon., April. 28, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.
'Extremely disappointed'
More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.
The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.
Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.
Burden 'eminently reasonable'
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.
But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."
Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"
Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.
Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.
Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/
Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process
updated 8:50 a.m. PT, Mon., April. 28, 2008
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.
'Extremely disappointed'
More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.
The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.
Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.
Burden 'eminently reasonable'
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.
But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."
Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"
Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.
Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.
Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
