In a
unanimous per curiam opinion just released (i.e., an opinion of the Court issued authorless), the Supreme Court has overturned a Ninth Circuit opinion and reinstated Arizona's Proposition 200, a voter initiative designed to prevent non-citizens from voting by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on Election Day.
Basically, the Court determined that because the Ninth Circuit offered no justification for why the law should be blocked -- no reasoning at all -- the initial findings of the district court upholding the law had to be respected. So sayeth the Nine:
[B]y failing to provide any factual findings or indeed any reasoning of its own the Court of Appeals left this Court in the position of evaluating the Court of Appeals' bare order in light of the District Court's ultimate findings. There has been no explanation given by the Court of Appeals showing the ruling and findings of the District Court to be incorrect. In view of the impending election, the necessity for clear guidance to the State of Arizona, and our conclusion regarding the Court of Appeals' issuance of the order we vacate the order of the Court of Appeals.
We underscore that we express no opinion here on the correct disposition, after full briefing and argument, of the appeals from the District Court's September 11 order or on the ultimate resolution of these cases. As we have noted, the facts in these cases are hotly contested, and "[n]o bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements." [] Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules.
That said, it sure sounds like the Court might be friendly to such a law, on the grounds that voter ID requirements protect some voters as much as they place a burden on others:
Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised. "[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise." [] Countering the State's compelling interest in preventing voter fraud is the plaintiffs' strong interest in exercising the "fundamental political right" to vote. []. Although the likely effects of Proposition 200 are much debated, the possibility that qualified voters might be turned away from the polls would caution any district judge to give careful consideration to the plaintiffs' challenges.
Adds Justice Stevens, concurring:
Allowing the election to proceed without enjoining the statutory provisions at issue will provide the courts with a better record on which to judge their constitutionality. At least two important factual issues remain largely unresolved: the scope of the disenfranchisement that the novel identification requirements will produce, and the prevalence and character of the fraudulent practices that allegedly justify those requirements. Given the importance of the constitutional issues, the Court wisely takes action that will enhance the likelihood that they will be resolved correctly on the basis of historical facts rather than speculation.
Interestingly (says Wiki) Proposition 200 was opposted by Sens. John McCain (R) and Jon Kyl (R), Governor Janet Napolitano (D), the Arizona Republican Party, the Arizona Democratic Party, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the AFL-CIO and others.