Friday, October 20, 2006

9th Circuit Overturned Again

Check out Sonoran Alliance for the scoop on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that reinstates Prop. 200 voter ID requirements.

Ironically, it was Terry Goddard who supported overturning the 9th Circuit decision, the same Terry Goddard who with Governor Napolitano filed suit against Proposition 200 multiple times.

Goddard said that protecting elections from fraud outweighed the possibility that some potential voters might have difficulties producing identification.

The justices slammed 9th Circuit judges for issuing the order with no apparent reason for doing so.

6 comments:

Randall Holdridge said...

A couple of points:

Of course it was Terry Goddard representing the State of Arizona; he's the Attorney General. What did you think, that because he may not personally like a proposition approved by Arizona voters, he's not going to honor his oath of office?

And, the U.S. Supreme Court did not overturn a ruling of the 9th Circuit; it lifted a stay on applying Prop. 200 requirements by the 9th Circuit regarding the Nov. 7th election so that it can go ahead as the state's election officers have planned. The 9th Circuit has not even heard evidence on the constitutionality of Prop. 200, much less made a ruling; and the U.S. Supremes specified today that this ruling should not be interpreted as an indication of opinion on Prop. 200's constitutionality.

Randall Holdridge said...

Oh, and by the way, what I wrote in my comment above is exactly what your quoted source, Oro Valley Dad at Sonoran Alliance said.

Where did you get you information that the Supremes "slammed" the 9th Circuit judges?

The Committee said...

I read the article in the newspaper:

"In fact, the justices took a slap at their colleagues on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for issuing their original order in the first place. They said the appellate judges provided no reason that they issued the legal stay in the first place and overturned the original order of the trial judge who actually heard the evidence."

Framer said...

That is going to leave a mark

SA said...

Slammed or spanked. Whenever you are overruled by a higher court either word applies.

Framer said...

I beleive the general thinking is that it is the heighth of arrogance to strike down the actual opinion of a lower court, who has actually tried the case, without looking at the evidence of the case.

The problem the ACLU is going to have going forward is that they are going to have to produce actual victims who have been "disenfranchised" by the ruling in order to win this for real.

It will be hard to argue that such a witness found it easier to participate in a several month long lawsuit, then obtain some sort of qualifying ID. That is because the requirement is not unreasonable.