It's gotta stop. Seriously!!!!
link to dissent:http://bradblog.com/...
Monday, Oct 13, 2014 05:46 PM EDT
GOP voter ID law gets crushed: Why Judge Richard Posner’s new opinion is so amazing
Conservative icon/federal judge changes mind on photo ID laws, issues blistering dissent against them. Read it here
Topics: Voter ID, photo ID, vote suppression, GOP, The Right, Richard Posner, voting, Democracy, judge, Editor's Picks, Politics News
GOP voter ID law gets crushed: Why Judge Richard Posner's new opinion is so amazing
Richard Posner (Credit: Reuters/John Gress)
This post originally appeared on The BRAD BLOG.
If you read just one top-to-bottom dismantling of every supposed premise in support of disenfranchising Photo ID voting restrictions laws in your lifetime, let it be this one [PDF].
It is a dissent, released on Friday, written by Judge Richard Posner, the Reagan-appointed 7th Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was the one who approved the first such Photo ID law in the country (Indiana’s) back in 2008, in the landmark Crawford v. Marion County case which went all the way to the Supreme Court, where Posner’s ruling was affirmed.
If there was ever evidence that a jurist could change their mind upon review of additional subsequent evidence, this is it. If there was ever a concise and airtight case made against Photo ID laws and the threat they pose to our most basic right to vote, this is it. If there was ever a treatise revealing such laws for the blatantly partisan shell games that they are, this is it.
His dissent includes a devastating response to virtually every false and/or disingenuous rightwing argument/talking point ever put forth in support of Photo ID voting restrictions, describing them as “a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters likely to vote for the political party that does not control the state government.”
Posner is, by far, the most widely cited legal scholar of the 20th century, according to The Journal of Legal Studies. His opinions are closely read by the Supreme Court, where the battle over the legality and Constitutionality of Photo ID voting laws will almost certainly wind up at some point in the not too distant future. That’s just one of the reasons why this opinion is so important.
This opinion, written on behalf of five judges on the 7th Circuit, thoroughly disabuses such notions such as: these laws are meant to deal with a phantom voter fraud concern (“Out of 146 million registered voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters”); that evidence shows them to be little more than baldly partisan attempts to keep Democratic voters from voting (“conservative states try to make it difficult for people who are outside the mainstream…to vote”); that rightwing partisan outfits like True the Vote, which support such laws, present “evidence” of impersonation fraud that is “downright goofy, if not paranoid”; and the notion that even though there is virtually zero fraud that could even possibly be deterred by Photo ID restrictions, the fact that the public thinks there is, is a lousy reason to disenfranchise voters since there is no evidence that such laws actually increase public confidence in elections and, as new studies now reveal, such laws have indeed served to suppress turnout in states where they have been enacted.
There is far too much in it to appropriately encapsulate here for now. You just really need to take some time to read it in full. But it was written, largely, in response to the Appellate Court ruling last week by rightwing Judge Frank Easterbrook which contained one embarrassing falsehood and error after another, including the canards about Photo ID being required to board airplanes, open bank accounts, buy beer and guns, etc. We took apart just that one paragraph of Easterbrook’s ruling last week here, but Posner takes apart his colleague’s entire, error-riddled mess of a ruling in this response.
Amongst my favorite passages (and there are so many), this one [emphasis added]…
The panel is not troubled by the absence of evidence. It deems the supposed beneficial effect of photo ID requirements on public confidence in the electoral system “‘a legislative fact’-a proposition about the state of the world,” and asserts that “on matters of legislative fact, courts accept the findings of legislatures and judges of the lower courts must accept findings by the Supreme Court.” In so saying, the panel conjures up a fact-free cocoon in which to lodge the federal judiciary. As there is no evidence that voter impersonation fraud is a problem, how can the fact that a legislature says it’s a problem turn it into one? If the Wisconsin legislature says witches are a problem, shall Wisconsin courts be permitted to conduct witch trials? If the Supreme Court once thought that requiring photo identification increases public confidence in elections, and experience and academic study since shows that the Court was mistaken, do we do a favor to the Court-do we increase public confidence in elections-by making the mistake a premise of our decision? Pressed to its logical extreme the panel’s interpretation of and deference to legislative facts would require upholding a photo ID voter law even if it were uncontested that the law eliminated no fraud but did depress turnout significantly.
And this one…
There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud, if there is no actual danger of such fraud, and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.
And remember, once again, this is written by Richard Posner, the conservative Republican icon of a federal appellate court judge — the judge who wrote the opinion on behalf of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals approving of the first such Photo ID law in the country in 2008, the very case that rightwingers from Texas to Wisconsin now cite over and over (almost always incorrectly) in support of similar such laws — now, clearly admitting that he got the entire thing wrong.
One last point (for now): Our legal analyst Ernie Canning, who (along with me) will undoubtedly have much more to say on this dissent in upcoming days, suggests we award The BRAD BLOG’s almost-never-anymore-bestowed Intellectually Honest Conservative Award to Judge Posner. And so it shall be.
Now go read Posner’s dissent.
Investigative journalist and broadcaster Brad Friedman is the creator and publisher of The BRAD Blog. He has contributed to Mother Jones, The Guardian, Truthout, Huffington Post, The Trial Lawyer magazine and Editor & Publisher.
What always amuses me about the religious right is how downright stupid they are. They’re not ignorant. Ignorance implies a lack of knowledge about a subject whereas stupidity refers to someone who knows very little about a subject yet offers a totally incorrect opinion as if it were fact.
So now the religious right of Arizona want to be able to refuse service to anyone who offends their personal religious practice. They are currently focusing on homosexuals. Apparently, a homosexual couple sued a photographer who refused to take pictures at their wedding and another couple sued a baker who refused to bake a cake for their wedding. I don’t know why they sued. I wouldn’t want someone taking my picture if they didn’t like my lifestyle but as someone who has worked as a wedding photographer for many years (and I’ve done my share of same-sex weddings) all the photographer had to say was that s/he was booked for that day. If a Nazi couple asked me to shoot their wedding I wouldn’t give them a speech on humanity, I’d simply say I was booked for that day.
But that’s the easy part. Here’s the stupid part….why gay people? Would they refuse to serve people who masturbate? The Bible strictly prohibits onanism for men (but not for women).What about unmarried couples who are unmarried but fornicate? That’s a big no-no. Will they turn away people who don't observe the Sabbath? The second commandment forbids people from making and owning graven images (think statues of Jesus, Mary, and anything else) Will these religious people ostracize anyone who keeps statues and thereby breaks the second commandment?
The answer is pretty simple. These people really don’t give a damn about religion. What they care about is making sure that people with whom they feel uncomfortable should not be welcome in their world. Apparently that is limited to gays. (Are there any Jews, Blacks, Muslims or Orientals there?)
The problem for Arizona is that incestuous cultures burn themselves out pretty quickly. Which may not be a bad thing considering the group we’re talking about.
Recommended by ManhattanJewess
- In 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached on charges of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. Although the Senate acquitted him some months later, history was made. Bill Clinton ...20 comments 10 Recs
- No current results.
- No current results.