The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I think its a pretty gray area. At what point does advocating their views become political campaigning?

Did the Houston mayor take it too far? Maybe. Did the pastor veer into the world of political campaigning? Maybe.

I think Joe is correct, that it seems there could be a conflict of IRS regulations and free speech on this one.

Edit: I also have not heard anything about this other than reading the couple of links posted in this thread.

At the moment, all this is about is the validity of the petition to put the city's equal rights ordinance on the ballot. The city secretary accepted it, the city attorney threw it out because of irregularities with a bunch of pages, mainly due (if I remember right) to the canvassers who signed to attest the pages not being city residents (that's the people saying "I'm the guy that collected the signatures," not the signers themselves), or something of that nature, and the petitioners are suing to keep it on the ballot, arguing that the city attorney improperly inserted himself into the process.

The city subpoena is, I believe, seeking to establish that they knew the rules well enough to know better. I don't think anything related to their tax-exempt status is on the table right now. To the extent that they asked for sermons, presumably someone was thinking that the sermons went into some detail on how to collect petition signatures. (Or someone wasn't really thinking and just asked for everything s/he could think of. Except in the broadest of terms, this originated with someone in the city attorney's office, rather than with Annise Parker.)

As far as the matter at hand (and not the sideshow involving the city's subpoenas in discovery)... on the one hand, I think the ordinance is a good thing and should stand. On the other hand, as far as I know, nobody is currently asserting that the petitioners failed to obtain the required number of valid signatures. On the third hand, even if the page issue is only a technical violation, the rule presumably still exists for a reason; shouldn't it be enforced?

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

At the moment, all this is about is the validity of the petition to put the city's equal rights ordinance on the ballot. The city secretary accepted it, the city attorney threw it out because of irregularities with a bunch of pages, mainly due (if I remember right) to the canvassers who signed not being city residents, or something of that nature, and the petitioners are suing to keep it on the ballot, arguing that the city attorney improperly inserted himself into the process.

The city subpoena is, I believe, seeking to establish that they knew the rules well enough to know better. I don't think anything related to their tax-exempt status is on the table right now. To the extent that they asked for sermons, presumably someone was thinking that the sermons went into some detail on how to collect petition signatures. (Or someone wasn't really thinking and just asked for everything s/he could think of. Except in the broadest of terms, this originated with someone in the city attorney's office, rather than with Annise Parker.)

That makes a little more sense, given the nature of the reported objections to the subpoenas.

[Jimjamesak]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Supreme Court denies stay on same sex marriages in Alaska .

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Supreme Court allows election in Texas to proceed under new voting rights law:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Saturday allowed Texas to enforce its voter identification law for the Nov. 4 midterm elections.

The state law requires voters to show a state-issued driver’s license, personal ID card or concealed handgun license, or a U.S. citizenship certificate, military ID card or passport.

This week the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, acting on an emergency appeal by state officials, decided Texas could use the voter ID law for this election. The appeals court said the state already had been training poll workers to apply the voter ID law and said it was too late to change the rules so close to the date when voters were due to begin casting ballots.

The appeals court said it was guided in part by recent Supreme Court emergency actions on election rules in Ohio, North Carolina and Wisconsin. The results in those cases pointed in different directions, but in each case the justices blocked late changes to state election procedures, seemingly out of concern for voter confusion.

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I can think of good reasoning in favor of letting the TX law stand for the election (not reasoning that I'd agree with necessarily, but good reasoning). Voter confusion isn't it. Voters might be confused and... bring more ID to the polls than they actually need? It was shoddy reasoning when the Fifth Circuit used it, and it's shoddy reasoning when the Supreme Court uses it.

(If I'd been betting on recent Supreme Court rulings involving TX, I'd be 0-2. I would have bet on them denying the injunction/stay on the abortion law and granting on voter ID.)

[Old Pio]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I can think of good reasoning in favor of letting the TX law stand for the election (not reasoning that I'd agree with necessarily, but good reasoning). Voter confusion isn't it. Voters might be confused and... bring more ID to the polls than they actually need? It was shoddy reasoning when the Fifth Circuit used it, and it's shoddy reasoning when the Supreme Court uses it.

(If I'd been betting on recent Supreme Court rulings involving TX, I'd be 0-2. I would have bet on them denying the injunction/stay on the abortion law and granting on voter ID.)

Voter ID is going to happen. Notwithstanding spurious claims of "racism." And the United States will join democracies around the world in expecting voters to identify themselves before exercising their franchise. Perhaps Democrats can refocus. And turn their vaunted "get out the vote" efforts to helping black folks get their ID cards, rather than tucking them in bed at night.

[ScoobyDoo]

Voter ID is going to happen. Notwithstanding spurious claims of "racism." And the United States will join democracies around the world in expecting voters to identify themselves before exercising their franchise. Perhaps Democrats can refocus. And turn their vaunted "get out the vote" efforts to helping black folks get their ID cards, rather than tucking them in bed at night.

Sure it is. Just like gay marriage wasnt going to happen.

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Since evidence of voter fraud is woefully insignificant, can draggers give one legit reason why enacting voter ID gives them such a boner?

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

why enacting voter ID gives them such a boner?

This.

Plus this.

[Jimjamesak]

Voter ID is going to happen. Notwithstanding spurious claims of "racism." And the United States will join democracies around the world in expecting voters to identify themselves before exercising their franchise. Perhaps Democrats can refocus. And turn their vaunted "get out the vote" efforts to helping black folks get their ID cards, rather than tucking them in bed at night.

Or you could have reasonable voter ID laws.

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

This might be the first significant roll-back of the surveillance state in 14 years.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled Thursday that obtaining cell phone location data to track a person’s location or movement in real time constitutes a Fourth Amendment search and therefore requires a court-ordered warrant.

...

The ruling constitutes the first time that a state court has reached this finding under the Fourth Amendment. It comes at a timely moment when federal courts of appeal in other jurisdictions are in the midst of taking up the question of cell tower data, Wessler told WIRED. Even if other jurisdictions rule differently, the Florida case makes it more likely that the issue will one day get to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, civil liberties advocates hope that the federal court would rule as it did on the use of GPS tracking devices used by police, determining that it constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Though the court in that case fell short of ruling that the use of GPS devices requires a warrant, law enforcement agencies around the country have changed their practices as a result of the ruling.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Since evidence of voter fraud is woefully insignificant,

Assertion contrary to fact. There is plenty of evidence that voter fraud occurs. The spurious red herring is that no one can prove which particular vote was fraudulent. Two separate matters. Only the latter is true, that does not make the former false.

When there are more votes cast than there are registered voters, how else can such an outcome be explained? Please do not try and maintain that someone just accidentally counted the same pile of ballots twice.

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Sure it is. Just like gay marriage wasnt going to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of voter id requirement passed in most states, if it has not already been done. The Supreme Court seems to be most concerned about changing the rules at the last minute, not the possibility someone can't figure out how to get an ID.

I personally think the Republicans are wasting a lot of time and money on the issue. Might it matter in a single election, in the short term? Possibly, although I don't think it's likely. The inner city precincts are going Democrat anyway. You could have a statewide election like Franken's that comes down to a few votes, but those are pretty rare.

I also don't think there are large numbers of people walking around without some sort of ID, contrary to the anecdotes trotted out each election. But even if those people exist, I mean c'mon, how hard is it really to get an ID? So you have to wait in line like at the DMV? It can't be any harder than going online to register for health insurance and waiting in a "virtual" line for 4 hours to prevent being fined/punished for not signing up.

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Assertion contrary to fact. There is plenty of evidence that voter fraud occurs.

Yes of course it occurs. However the frequency and level of damage are without question significantly up for debate.

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of voter id requirement passed in most states, if it has not already been done. The Supreme Court seems to be most concerned about changing the rules at the last minute, not the possibility someone can't figure out how to get an ID.

I personally think the Republicans are wasting a lot of time and money on the issue. Might it matter in a single election, in the short term? Possibly, although I don't think it's likely. The inner city precincts are going Democrat anyway. You could have a statewide election like Franken's that comes down to a few votes, but those are pretty rare.

I also don't think there are large numbers of people walking around without some sort of ID, contrary to the anecdotes trotted out each election. But even if those people exist, I mean c'mon, how hard is it really to get an ID? So you have to wait in line like at the DMV? It can't be any harder than going online to register for health insurance and waiting in a "virtual" line for 4 hours to prevent being fined/punished for not signing up.

Exactly, the problem isnt the need for an ID, the problem is changing the law right before the election which is a way to keep people from voting. If this is such a big deal fight for the law right after the previous election so everyone has plenty of time to prepare. We know that isnt the motive though