A law passed in Georgia, with provisions similar to Arizona's voter ID requirements, is likewise intended to prevent non-citizens from voting and other fraud. After having been struck down by a previous judge, the Georgia state supreme court took a strong stand in support of the law. According to the Philadelphia Daily News,
"The unanimous opinion reversed a judge's September ruling that the law posed an unconstitutional burden on voters. The high court said the plaintiff had no legal grounds to challenge the law...- AP"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The GA Supreme Court ruling doesn't claim the lower court ruling was incorrect in it's reasoning, but rather that the person who brought the case in the first place had no grounds to do so. Which means:
a) Expect to see the decision appealed again, and
b) Expect to see a new case brought forward on the same grounds with the same case reasoning, but with a plaintiff who (under the Supreme Court ruling) _would_ have grounds.
Such a case will automatically win at the lower court level (as the precedent has been set, and the initial reasoning has not been challenged/overturned). Then there will be another appeal to the GA Supreme Court.
So it's a "victory" in a technical sense, but says nothing about the long-term prospects of the law.
You are right. It was a victory in the technical sense. However, how the decision was worded may or may not allow for much of an appeal. Courts have often ruled on such grounds in a way that restricts who has legal grounds to make the argument as in the case of the ACLU challenging the military's use of facilities for the national Boy Scout jamboree. In that recent case, the court ruled the ACLU had no legal grounds to challenge the practice thereby killing the case.
Correct -- you have to find someone who can claim actual harm, or at least make a reasonable case for it.
Frankly, it shouldn't be overly difficult to find someone who meets that criteria within Georgia.
Post a Comment