Capitol Report
By State Representative, Leon D. Young
Leon D. Young
Granted, it was a long shot (by any measure) that a full federal appeals court would ultimately reconsider a recent order handed down by a three judge panel from the same 7th Circuit.
The Advancement Project and the American Civil Liberties Union – the groups that first challenged the law in 2011 federal suit – had asked the federal appeals court for a re-hearing by the entire 10-judge panel.
However, when the dust finally settled, the request had fallen just one vote shy of getting the full 7th Circuit to hold a hearing on the case.
The members of the court split 5-5 on whether to hold the hearing, which means that the request did not get a majority of votes and failed as a result.
For all intents and purposes, this probably clears the way for state to implement its Voter I.D. law for the midterm election on Nov. 4. Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court could still intervene in the voter I.D. controversy at the 11th hour, in order to avert the unnecessary chaos and disenfranchisement that will result from this rushed implementation of the voter I.D. requirement.
However, the likelihood of the Roberts’ Supreme Court getting involved in this voter I.D. quagmire is highly remote — to say the least.
If you remember, the U.S. Supreme Court actually interposed itself in the Bush v. Gore 2000 presidential election.
In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it.
The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.
As the highest court in land, Supreme Court has the ultimate appellate authority to legally undo a myriad of harms.
In 2000, the Court took an “activist approach” and halted the Florida recount, giving election to George W. Bush.
Fast forward to 2014, the Court in this instant will probably exercise “judicial restraint” (in not hearing the case).
Thus allowing thousands of eligible Wisconsin voters to be disenfranchised as a result of draconian voter I.D. requirement – a scant 5 weeks before the Nov. 4 election.
This, in essence, is déjà vu all over again on the part of the U.S. Supreme Court.