The ACRU Blog

On Thursday, May 1st at 11:20am ET, Peter Ferrara will be on "The Right Balance" on the Accent Radio Network. He will be discussing the Indiana Voter ID case. Click here to find your local station.

Horace Cooper will be making three radio appearances on Friday, February 15th.

The first begins at 7:35am EST. He will be on 1140AM WRVA in Richmond, VA talking to Jimmy Barrett and "Richmond's Morning News. He will be discussing FISA. You can listen online here.

Then at 9:00am EST, he will be discussing the Indiana Driver's Licenses and the DC Gun Ban Case with John Watson on WILM-AM in Wilmington, DE. You can listen online here.

Finally, at 11:00am EST, Horace will be on with Doug Guetzloe and "The Guetzloe Report" on WAMT 1190AM in Winter Park, FL. He will again be talking about FISA. You can listen online here.

UPDATE: Horace's appearance on "The Guetzloe Report" has been cancelled. Hopefully Horace will be on again soon.

Peter Ferrara and Horace Cooper will both be on the radio Monday, January 21st to talk about Voting Rights, MLK Day and whatever else comes up.

Peter will be on the Steve Malzberg Show on WOR 710AM in New York at 4:30pm EST. You can listen live here.

Horace will be talking to Scott James and the The James Gang on Fox News Radio 600 KCOL, in Loveland, CO. He will be on at 7:35pm EST. Listen to Horace live here.

UPDATE: Horace will also be on the Mike Agnello Show on WCHS 58 Radio from 5:08-5:20pm EST. He will again be talking about Voting Rights and MLK Day.

Peter Ferrara will be recapping the Indiana Voter ID case with Mary Maddox and Carmen Pate on the "Point of View" show on the USA Radio Network. He will be on January 11 from 2:30-2:45pm EST. Listen live here or go here to find your local station.

Peter will also discuss the Indiana Voter ID case with Brian Thomas on that 55KRC Morning Show in Cincinnati, OH. He will be on January 14th at 7:40am EST for one segment. Listen online here.

Wake Up America wrapped up yesterdays arguments in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Their discussion is here.

As well as writing some great insight into the justices' questioning, "SPREE" mentioned, the ACRU and our amicus brief that was filed supporting the Indiana Law.

Peter Ferrara was interviewed 1200 WOAI in San Antonio about the Indiana Voter ID case being heard at the Supreme Court today. The article can be read here.

When asked about the claim that these laws depress the turnout of the poor, Ferrara responded,

If you don't have a photo i.d., under this law, the state will give you one for free. If you are too poor even to get one of the free photo i.ds, you can be exempted from the law. The only people who are inconvenienced will be those who are trying to commit voter fraud.

More reports on today's arguments as time permits.

Rob Bluey, a columnist at Townhall.com wrote the following column Sunday on the upcoming Indiana Voter ID Case being heard Wednesday, January 9th. This is following ACRU Senior Fellow Kenneth Blackwell's column in the New York Sun.

Rob talked about, among other points, that the left claims requiring an ID will reduce voter turnout. Says Bluey,

Claims of disenfranchisement have been rebutted in numerous studies of voter ID requirements. The most recent, a statistical analysis completed by The Heritage Foundation in September, flatly concluded that voter ID laws don't depress voter turnout.

According a poll quoted in Bluey's column, 77% of approve of an ID system at the polls. The ACLU is out of the mainstream.

The problem is spreading. It used to be that Chicago or St. Louis was famous for having dogs, cats and others voting when they were not allowed. But more and more areas around the country are facing this problem. The ACLU and other leftists are on the wrong side of this one. They seem to not care that dogs, cats, and dead people seem to vote.

Peter Ferrara will be interviewed twice on Tuesday, January 8th about the Indiana Voter ID case. The first is with Chad Groening and the American Family Radio Network News. He will be on from 10:30am-10:35am EST. Go here to find your local station or listen live by going here.

The second interview will be with Greg Allen and The Right Balance with Greg Allen. Peter will be on from 11:06am- 11:20am EST. Listen online here.

New ACRU Senior Fellow Kenneth Blackwell wrote this op-ed in the New York Sun today. This op-ed discusses two important cases be heard by the US Supreme Court on January 9th.

Crawford v. Marion County and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita is about Indiana's new voter ID law. The law requires people voting on Election Day to show a government issue ID.

Mr. Blackwell discusses how important this case is. Talking about the views on this issue Blackwell said this:

These views come from two different ways of looking at voting rights. One outlook is that the system should do everything possible to help facilitate voting. This would mean making voting registration and casting votes as easy and fast as we can. The other is that voting is an important civic duty, with the emphasis on personal responsibility to properly register, go to the appointed locations, and fulfill whatever reasonable requirements are necessary to keep fraudulent votes from undermining the process.

Case information can be found here. The ACRU has filed an amicus brief, which can be read here.

The second shoe has dropped in Georgia. A year ago, there were temporary injunctions in place in both state and federal courts against the new Voter ID Law in that state. The law had been modified in response to a prior ruling in the federal court. The revised law allowed any resident of Georgia who did not already have a drivers license, to obtain for free a photo ID like those used by people who do not, or cannot, get a drivers license.

Earlier this year, an appeal of a state judge's injunction against the same law was decided in the Georgia Supreme Court. That Court did not rule on the merits of the case, but instead dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs had any right to bring such a case.

Now, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy has dissolved his own temporary injunction against the law, and dismissed the whole case as being without merit. (Since this was a civil rights case - voting is the most basic civil right - and Georgia prevailed, the last step remaining should be a stiff fee award against the plaintiffs and their ACLU-type attorneys, for bringing a baseless claim.)

Judge Murphy wrote a 159-page decision that praised the state's "exceptional efforts" to contact voters to inform them of the new law, and how to comply with it for free. He also noted that any voter could still vote by absentee ballot without showing an ID, so no voter was "prevented from participating" in elections.

A correct summary of this case came from Secretary of State Karen Handel. She called Murphy's ruling ``a tremendous victory'' for integrity in elections. The state court decision is final. The plaintiff's counsel has not committed to whether they will appeal. The trend of cases across the country is now strongly in favor of Voter ID laws. Appeals of decisions upholding such laws will probably fail.

It will be interesting to see what precincts in Georgia might have significant declines in votes cast, with the ID law being enforced for the first time beginning in with "early voting" on 18 September. If there is a serious decrease, it will indicate that a significant problem has now been solved by a common sense law, upheld by common sense judges.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in AccessNorthGeorgia.com, from the Associated Press, published on 6 September.

The second shoe has dropped in Georgia. A year ago, there were temporary injunctions in place in both state and federal courts against the new Voter ID Law in that state. The law had been modified in response to a prior ruling in the federal court. The revised law allowed any resident of Georgia who did not already have a drivers license, to obtain for free a photo ID like those used by people who do not, or cannot, get a drivers license.

Earlier this year, an appeal of a state judge's injunction against the same law was decided in the Georgia Supreme Court. That Court did not rule on the merits of the case, but instead dismissed the case because none of the plaintiffs had any right to bring such a case.

Now, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy has dissolved his own temporary injunction against the law, and dismissed the whole case as being without merit. (Since this was a civil rights case - voting is the most basic civil right - and Georgia prevailed, the last step remaining should be a stiff fee award against the plaintiffs and their ACLU-type attorneys, for bringing a baseless claim.)

Judge Murphy wrote a 159-page decision that praised the state's "exceptional efforts" to contact voters to inform them of the new law, and how to comply with it for free. He also noted that any voter could still vote by absentee ballot without showing an ID, so no voter was "prevented from participating"
in elections.

A correct summary of this case came from Secretary of State Karen Handel.
She called Murphy's ruling ``a tremendous victory'' for integrity in elections. The state court decision is final. The plaintiff's counsel has not committed to whether they will appeal. The trend of cases across the country is now strongly in favor of Voter ID laws. Appeals of decisions upholding such laws will probably fail.

It will be interesting to see what precincts in Georgia might have significant declines in votes cast, with the ID law being enforced for the first time beginning in with "early voting" on 18 September. If there is a serious decrease, it will indicate that a significant problem has now been solved by a common sense law, upheld by common sense judges.

The facts for this article, but not the legal conclusions, come from an article in AccessNorthGeorgia.com, from the Associated Press, published on 6 September.

Go here to find this article on the Net.

On Monday, June 11th, the Georgia Supreme Court reversed a trial court decision that a Georgia law requiring photo ID for all voters, was unconstitutional. The court's decision was unanimous, but not substantive. It was that the Plaintiff lacked standing to object to the law, and therefore the case was dismissed.

The subject of the constitutionality of the Georgia law remains open, however, because a preliminary injunction against the law has been granted in a separate, federal challenge to the law, which is still pending.

Opponents to voter ID laws, which in many cases include the ACLU, argue that requiring photo IDs will "disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly." These arguments have a tough time dealing with the practical fact that someone who wants to write a $20 check at the grocery store for milk, eggs and bread for breakfast, has to present valid, photo ID. And it is hard to argue that voting is less important than buying stuff for breakfast.

Most of the arguments in Georgia and other states against such laws claim that they amount to an "illegal poll tax." States have responded to these claims by making the process free for those citizens who want a government-issued ID in lieu of a drivers license. The real reason why opponents dislike these laws is that honest drivers licenses with photos and proof of citizenship would go a long way toward shutting down voter fraud.

And the voter ID laws will be indirectly tightened up by a federal law requiring proof of citizenship for all US and state citizens to obtain state drivers licenses, with different designs and expiration laws for any legal aliens who also obtain drivers licenses. The combined effect of voter ID and license laws will be that voters in American elections would be almost entirely living, American citizens voting only once.

Similar voter ID laws have been upheld in Arizona by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and struck down by the state Supreme Court in Missouri. Since the question of "discrimination in voting laws is a First Amendment, federal issue, it is likely that a US Supreme Court decision will settle out all these cases, both state and federal.

As a 33-year practitioner in the US Supreme Court on First Amendment issues mostly, I predict that when that Court takes one of these cases, it will rule in favor of the law, as long as there is a mechanism such as a poverty affidavit by which the poorest people can obtain state photo IDs without charge.

It is not very often that the American Civil Rights Union has kind words for the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Nor does the US Supreme Court have many kind words for them, either. That Court reverses decisions of that Circuit more than all other Circuits combined.

But every rule has its exceptions. And a unanimous decision of a panel of the Ninth Circuit upholding an Arizona law on voter IDs causes us to say, "One cheer for the Ninth Circuit."

A widely reported AP story entitled, "Ruling lets Arizona require proof of citizenship of voters," tells part of the story. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals left standing the federal trial judge's decision that Arizona could require all new voters to show proof of citizenship, before being allowed to register to vote.

This is the second half of Arizona's citizen initiative to be reviewed by the Ninth Circuit. The first half, that voters had to present IDs in order to vote, was temporarily struck down by the Ninth Circuit last fall, just prior to the election. On an emergency basis, the US Supreme Court unanimously reversed that decision.

Did the Ninth Circuit learn a lesson? Probably not, because dozens of prior reversals have done little to change its behavior. The plaintiffs and their ACLU attorneys will probably ask the whole Ninth Circuit to reverse its panel decision. That will probably be denied, and the Supreme Court will refuse review. The case will then go back to Phoenix for trial in US District Court.

The idea that voters in American elections should be American citizens, was not such an outlandish idea to the people of Arizona, who approved this law. It was not outlandish to the trial judge. And now, finally, it is not outlandish in the Ninth Circuit. Common sense has reared its ugly head in the Circuit in San Francisco.

Precisely because something like this happens so seldom, let's hear it: One cheer for the Ninth Circuit....

Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20070420-1403-voterid.html

Congratulations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for its decision on Friday refusing to enjoin Arizona from enforcing Proposition 200, which Arizona voters adopted in 2004 to stem vote fraud.

Proposition 200 amended Arizona law to require persons wishing to register to vote for the first time in that state to present proof of citizenship, and to require all Arizona voters to present identification when they vote in person at the polls.

The law was challenged as improperly burdening the right to vote, and the plaintiffs went to federal court seeking a preliminary injunction against its enforcement even before a trial established the facts. The trial court turned them down, but on October 5, 2006 -- a little more than a month before the election -- a panel of Ninth Circuit judges reversed that ruling and ordered that an emergency injunction be entered, effectively opening the door on election day to the very potential for fraud that Arizona voters had sought to prevent.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court saw it differently (as it so often does in reviewing actions of the Ninth Circuit, which is both the most liberal and the most reversed federal appellate court in the country). The Supreme Court vacated the injunction, and the 2006 elections were conducted with the safeguards Arizona voters had chosen.

But the plaintiffs did not give up. They returned to the trial court, and again sought to enjoin enforcement of the registration identification requirement (they did not, however, resume the battle at that stage about the voter identification requirement).

The trial court once more ruled against them. On Friday, a unanimous panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed, holding that they had failed to so much as "raise serious questions going to the merits of their arguments." So for the moment, at least, the voters of Arizona who chose to enact modest measures against vote fraud have an important victory.

Kudos to the Ninth Circuit. The case, which can be found on the Ninth Circuit's website, is Gonzalez v. State of Arizona, No. 06-16521.