Voter ID Upheld: 9th Circus Ct. App. smacked down


PDA






beerslurpy
October 20, 2006, 05:40 PM
With a per curiam (http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06A375.pdf) pdf for you to read.

Basically the 9th circus overturned the district court without actually bothering to give any good reasons for doing so. The supreme court was basically like "uh you can't do that, here is a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for you to review."

This is awesome because it means that AZ (and anyone else that wishes) can proceed with voter ID laws. Which means that illegals cant vote! Fancy that.

If you enjoyed reading about "Voter ID Upheld: 9th Circus Ct. App. smacked down" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
October 20, 2006, 05:47 PM
Bad news for Democrats. They really need that segment of the Democratic base--the illegal and dead vote--for '08.:)

I am certain that the 9th Circuit will correct their mistake and Voter ID will be ruled unconstitutional.

Standing Wolf
October 20, 2006, 06:01 PM
...it means that AZ (and anyone else that wishes) can proceed with voter ID laws. Which means that illegals cant vote!

Well, not quite so frequently, anyway.

beerslurpy
October 20, 2006, 06:01 PM
The Supreme Court's ruling specifically instructs that the election should proceed with the law in place.

Various Dem groups sued to overturn the law, and asked for a preliminary injunction against the law being enforced. The district court denied them without issuing any findings of fact or conclusions of law.

The plaintiffs appealed to the 9th CCA and the denial was overturned without comment. The State of Arizona requested a rehearing and this was denied without comment. This was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Since then, the District Court released its findings and conclusions and said that the plaintiffs had some chance of succeeding in their lawsuit, but it was not an overwhelming chance that justified granting a preliminary injunction (basically giving them their victory up front before they win their suit).

Holding:
The 9th CCA has to actually list reasons that the lower court is obviously wrong in their decision and if they cant show that they have to defer to them. And even though the district court didnt actually issue anything the 9th CCA had to defer to, they were still obliged to illustrate the reasons for their reversal.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 20, 2006, 06:05 PM
I notice a concurring opinion from Stevens - the Ninth must have really hosed their decision to earn that. Was it a 9-0 decision? The per curiam doesn't mention the breakdown.

beerslurpy
October 20, 2006, 06:11 PM
I'm going off the opinion, so I have no more knowledge than anyone else that read it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Voter ID Upheld: 9th Circus Ct. App. smacked down" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!