Justices to consider voter identification

Legal News Center

[##_1L|1115733648.jpg|width="180" height="135" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court said Tuesday that it will consider whether state laws requiring voters to present photo identification at polling places unfairly discriminate against the poor and minorities, injecting the justices into a fiercely partisan battle just before the 2008 elections. At a time when polarization on the court - many of its recent decisions have been decided 5-4 - has turned it into a target for political partisans, the justices are stepping into a political battle with its decision to accept the voter identification case.

Proponents of the laws that have been passed since the contested 2000 presidential election say the measures combat fraud. But opponents said poor people and minorities who often don't have driver's licenses, passports or other government-issued identification would be excluded from the polls.

Seven states require a photo identification to vote and 17 states require identification without photos. The battle has broken down over partisan lines with Republicans favoring laws they said would combat voter fraud while Democrats have pushed proposals they said would encourage more voter participation.

The voter identification case is from Indiana, where Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, said "voter fraud exists and Hoosiers shouldn't have to become further victims of it."

But state Democratic Party chairman Dan Parker, whose party urged the court to take the case, said Republicans have "relied on fear and flimsy legal logic to push through a policy that deters voting instead of promoting it."

A spokesman for the Republican National Committee responded cautiously to the announcement. "We are pleased that the Supreme Court is bringing attention to this important issue," Danny Diaz said.

"This is another step to ensure that every citizen who is eligible to vote will have that right."

Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist who heads the DNC Voting Rights Institute, likened voter requirements to a "modern-day poll tax" designed to disenfranchise black and poor voters.

"Some of us in the voting rights community are very nervous because we fear the court will make matters worse," she said.

Related listings

  • Judge: No Breath Tests for Pedestrians

    Judge: No Breath Tests for Pedestrians

    Legal News Center 09/27/2007

    [##_1L|1022404394.jpg|width="127" height="85" alt=""|_##]A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Michigan law that requires pedestrians under 21 to submit to a breath test without a search warrant. The American Civil Liberties Union, which had sued on...

  • High court to review lethal injection

    High court to review lethal injection

    Legal News Center 09/26/2007

    [##_1L|1000547554.jpg|width="180" height="135" alt=""|_##]Facing near legal chaos in states that use the death penalty, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to review a Kentucky lethal injection case signals the justices are prepared to try to s...

  • Supreme Court to rule on lethal injection executions

    Supreme Court to rule on lethal injection executions

    Legal News Center 09/25/2007

    [##_1L|1374613952.jpg|width="104" height="138" alt=""|_##]The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether the commonly used lethal injection method of execution violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The natio...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read