Friday, January 19, 2007
Today, checked pobox, nothing new, emailed client, emailed State rep Wiliam Crawford about the case. This just in from the Indy star.
Plaintiffs seek rehearing on state's voter ID law
Plaintiffs challenging Indiana's voter identification law filed a motion Thursday seeking a rehearing, saying they think a federal appeals court erred when it upheld the law earlier this month.
A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the decision by a lower court to keep the law in place. The panel concluded in a 2-1 vote that the measure has not hindered voters.
But the plaintiffs, who include Democrats and civil liberties activists, want the entire 12-judge court to weigh in. They argue there is plenty of evidence showing the law has caused voting problems.
Passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in 2005, the law requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID before they can vote.
I've just read the motion for rehearing en banc, and had to go back and read the appeal brief that Posner was responding to.
Plaintiffs did not preserve their poll tax, equal protection,and free and equal elections claims in the appeal. They relied on a losing voting rights act claim, a series of first amendment arguments, and one of the state constitutional claims, the article II section 2 claim.
So if I do a brief, I can't argue these things that were waived, but I can argue the ones that were preserved. This means my case is even more important then ever - it is the only place where these claims are preserved and can be argued.
I should prepare a memo for the Brennan Center on these points.
More thoughts on the
Plaintiffs seek rehearing on state's voter ID law
Plaintiffs challenging Indiana's voter identification law filed a motion Thursday seeking a rehearing, saying they think a federal appeals court erred when it upheld the law earlier this month.
A three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld the decision by a lower court to keep the law in place. The panel concluded in a 2-1 vote that the measure has not hindered voters.
But the plaintiffs, who include Democrats and civil liberties activists, want the entire 12-judge court to weigh in. They argue there is plenty of evidence showing the law has caused voting problems.
Passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in 2005, the law requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID before they can vote.
I've just read the motion for rehearing en banc, and had to go back and read the appeal brief that Posner was responding to.
Plaintiffs did not preserve their poll tax, equal protection,and free and equal elections claims in the appeal. They relied on a losing voting rights act claim, a series of first amendment arguments, and one of the state constitutional claims, the article II section 2 claim.
So if I do a brief, I can't argue these things that were waived, but I can argue the ones that were preserved. This means my case is even more important then ever - it is the only place where these claims are preserved and can be argued.
I should prepare a memo for the Brennan Center on these points.
More thoughts on the
