The Supreme Court looks closely at Indiana's voter-ID law.

Oral argument from the court.
Jan. 9 2008 8:03 PM

Grandma Got Carded

The Supreme Court looks closely at Indiana's voter-ID law.

(Continued from Page 1)

(OK, lightning round con-law review: "Facial challenges" claim that a law is unconstitutional under every set of facts. They have traditionally been a useful mechanism for knocking down patently unconstitutional laws—one that allows lawyers to get cracking before a lot of people get thrown off the voting rolls, say, or can't get an abortion because of a hugely burdensome regulation. The tougher alternative is to require a real harmed plaintiff to bring an "as-applied" challenge, based on the premise that the law in question may be constitutional in general but not when applied to her. More from Mike Dorf here.) 

With increasing frequency, the court's conservative wing has been chipping away at facial challenges (the better to bar litigation), and today Scalia takes out a sledgehammer: "I mean, every facial challenge is an immense dictum on the part of this court, isn't it?" He goes on to characterize all facial challenges as the court "sitting back and looking at the ceiling and saying, oh, we can envision not the case before us, but other cases …" 

Ginsburg tries to establish that the reason for allowing facial challenges is that when a law burdens the right to vote, "[T]he horse will be out of the barn." While waiting to suffer real injury, plaintiffs get to kick back and watch "election results skewed for the other party, while they were unable to vote." In the case of Indiana's indigent voters in particular "that's not hypothetical, that's real."


Then Kennedy enters stage right, struggling to make the Indiana law at least slightly less burdensome, while preserving "the central purpose of the statute." And the brilliant Solicitor General Paul Clement, defending the law on behalf of the Bush administration, drives the last stake through the heart of facial challenges, by making it sound ever so reasonable for the court to wait around for some real voters to be truly disenfranchised, and only then tweaking the statute some to help them out. Kennedy looks hugely relieved; Roberts practically burps him. But Stevens asks whether it's not slightly "unrealistic to assume" that indigent voters without cars might find it, er, "[E]asier to file a lawsuit and bear the burden of litigation rather than go back to get the second affidavit" needed to get their ID cards? If you're too poor or marginalized to track down your birth certificate, is filing a federal class-action suit really the faster, cheaper alternative?

In his rebuttal, Paul Smith is dramatic, warning that if the court were to scrap facial challenges in this context, election law would become a "morass" and "that way lies madness." He reminds the court that "nobody challenged the poll tax as applied." But Kennedy isn't going for it: "You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?"

"Only if that law serves no purpose," replies Smith.

"What if we determine that it does serve a purpose in preventing fraud?" asks Roberts. (Which can totally be done if you count hypothetical future acts of invisible fraud as vote fraud.) Well, then it might look totally reasonable to uphold the Indiana law.

To recap: I fear I am counting five justices who believe that a nonexistent problem can be constitutionally cured by burdening the fundamental right to vote. Happy byproduct? Doing away with those pesky facial challenges that liberals like to use to address massive injustices. So in the guise of doing away with hypothetical future challenges to a law, the court is poised to uphold a law that solves hypothetical future problems in voting. And for those of you wondering why the court didn't see fit to release audio for today's monumentally important argument, the answer remains, who knows? But here's one guess: The justices didn't want to be caught on tape sounding like the same 5-4 court that decided Bush v. Gore, even if nothing has changed.



More Than Scottish Pride

Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 

iOS 8 Comes Out Today. Do Not Put It on Your iPhone 4S.

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

Three Talented Actresses in Three Terrible New Shows

The Human Need to Find Connections in Everything

It’s the source of creativity and delusions. It can harm us more than it helps us.


Happy Constitution Day!

Too bad it’s almost certainly unconstitutional.

The Ungodly Horror of Having a Bug Crawl Into Your Ear and Scratch Away at Your Eardrum

My Father Was James Brown. I Watched Him Beat My Mother. Then I Married Someone Like Him.

  News & Politics
Sept. 17 2014 12:02 PM Here It Is: The Flimsiest Campaign Attack Ad of 2014, Which Won’t Stop Running
Business Insider
Sept. 17 2014 1:36 PM Nate Silver Versus Princeton Professor: Who Has the Right Models?
Sept. 17 2014 1:59 PM Ask a Homo: Secret Ally Codes 
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 17 2014 1:26 PM Hey CBS, Rihanna Is Exactly Who I Want to See on My TV Before NFL Games
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 17 2014 9:37 AM Is Slate Too Liberal?  A members-only open thread.
Brow Beat
Sept. 17 2014 1:01 PM A Rare, Very Unusual Interview With Michael Jackson, Animated
Future Tense
Sept. 17 2014 12:35 PM IOS 8 Comes Out Today. Do Not Put It on Your iPhone 4S.
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 17 2014 11:18 AM A Bridge Across the Sky
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.