Organize the South

Unfortunately, I agree with Tyrone Brooks. I don't have faith the Supreme Court will rule justly on this. Worth a shot, but I'm not holding my breath.

Supreme Court review of Indiana's voter ID law to affect Georgia's

By BEN SMITH
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 09/25/07

A U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday to hear an appeal of Indiana's voter ID law could have far-reaching implications for Georgia's new statute and similar measures across the nation.

The Georgia law, which like the Indiana statute requires voters to bring one form of photo identification to the polls, is expected to be challenged in the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

This month, a lower federal court judge upheld the statute, allowing the law to be applied for the first time in local elections across Georgia on Sept. 18. So did the Georgia Supreme Court, which tossed out a similar lawsuit against the voter ID statute in June.

The law, passed by the Georgia Legislature in 2006, is intended to prevent voter fraud.

But opponents said the law could dissuade the poor, the disabled, ethnic minorities and the elderly — who are less likely to carry driver's licenses or other forms of photo identification — from going to the polls.

Advocates on both sides welcomed the Supreme Court review of Indiana's law.

"I'm not surprised or disappointed at all," said state Sen. Cecil Stanton (R-Macon), the author of the state's voter ID law. "I think it can resolve this issue once and for all."

The state Legislature passed Stanton's voter ID bill in 2005. He reintroduced it in 2006 after U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy struck it down. Murphy upheld the revised statute on Sept. 6.

A plaintiff in the Georgia case was less optimistic that the Supreme Court might rule on the plaintiffs' side in the Indiana case.

"This is the same court that decided Bush v. Gore, the same court that has spoken on school desegregation," said state Rep. Tyrone Brooks (D-Atlanta). "Just looking at the record of this court there doesn't look like much to celebrate. But it is a ray of hope."

Brooks said it was a good sign that the high court didn't refuse to hear the case.

Brooks is president of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, one of the groups listed as plaintiffs in the suit. The others are the League of Women Voters of Georgia; the NAACP; the Georgia Legislative Black Caucus; and the Concerned Black Clergy of Metro Atlanta.

The plaintiffs' lawyer, David Brackett, said the court's final decision on Indiana's voter ID law could have a direct impact on his clients' case.

That's because the central argument in both cases is the same, Brackett said.

"In cases in which the right to vote is burdened, there is a sliding scale," said Brackett. "You have to look at the interests that the state is trying to protect and you have to look at the magnitude and character it imposes on the right to vote."

Brackett said he plans to file a notice of appeal with 11th Circuit Court.

In Georgia and Indiana, lower courts have ruled that the new voter ID requirements didn't pose a significant burden on an individual's right to vote.

If the high court were to disagree, both laws ultimately could be tossed out because neither state provided evidence that voter fraud was actually taking place, said Brackett.

Stanton said he was confident the Georgia law would survive further court challenges.

"There is a balance between the right to vote and the need to protect voting and elections from fraud," said Stanton. "And I think the Georgia law has struck a good balance."