Legal News

Does Crawford Ruling Represent a Stevens-Obama Split?

By Dan Slater

Yesterday’s splintered 6-3 ruling in the Voter ID case polarized the High Court in at least two respects — whether voter fraud actually exists, and whether Indiana’s strict requirement of photo ID will deter certain groups, such as poor and minority citizens, from voting. (Click here for stories from the WSJ and NYT.)

To recap, briefly: In the lead opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, Justice Stevens, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, wrote that the law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” In his concurrence, Justice Scalia went a step further, writing that the law was so obviously justified as “a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation” that there was no basis for scrutinizing the record to assess the impact on any individual voters.

In dissenting, Justices Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer argued for those on whom the law had an impact, the burden was “serious” and the state had failed to justify it. Souter wrote that “the onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise.”

We woke up today to a bevy of commentary on the case, from around the Web. Our quick roundup:

More Partisan Election Laws to Come: Over at the Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen, who submitted an amicus brief in the case, says “despite the Stevens-Kennedy-Roberts’ opinion’s best intentions, this opinion will be read as a green light for the enactment of more partisan election laws in an attempt to skew outcomes in close elections.” From that perspective, the opinion is a real disappointment, writes Hasen.

Who’s the Real Reformer? WSJ columnist John Fund believes the case has divided two “liberal icons”: Justice Stevens and Senator Barack Obama. The case, writes Fund, “revealed a fundamental philosophical conflict between two perspectives rooted in the machine politics of Chicago.” Stevens, who wrote the decision, grew up in Hyde Park, where Obama – “the most vociferous Congressional critic” of voter ID laws – lives now. “Both men have seen how the Daley machine has governed the city for so many years,” says Fund, “with a mix of patronage, contract favoritism and, where necessary, voter fraud.”

Justice Stevens, writes Fund, is “the real reformer” who “believes voter ID laws are justified to prevent fraud, while Obama is the “faux reformer” who “hauls out discredited rhetoric that they disenfranchise voters.”

Decision Won’t Settle Debate Over Voter ID: The NYT’s Ian Urbina writes that yesterday’s opinion in Crawford will only lead to “more laws and litigation.” Doug Chapin, the director of the Pew Center on the States Web site, electionline.org, told the Urbina that “The court’s opinion is likely to perform the same function for the photo ID debate as the Pennsylvania primary did for the Democratic presidential nomination — hardening positions while doing little if anything to illuminate a path to resolving the conflict.”

The ruling is likely to set off fierce debates where illegal immigration is a hot issue, reports Urbina, specifically pointing out current or likely-to-come legislative debates in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri and Florida.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on April 29, 2008 (boomark / email).