Via MAL Contends - Old habits die hard for Republicans.

Unfortunately, for the GOP many African-Americans remain clueless as to their proper place in American society. A hint: It's not at the ballot box.

So the Republican Party believes.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear a voter ID case stemming from an Indiana law targeting poor and minority Americans to keep them from voting.

The Court is likely to decide the case next spring in time for the 2008 presidential elections, thereby possibly delivering a death blow to the Republican Party's national program (administered through the DoJ, such as US Atty's Biskupic's voter fraud cases, and state laws) of suppressing black, elderly and poor voters who skew against voting Republican.

Judge Terence Evans of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in dissent (cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25) clarifies the issue:

"Let's not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic." [- Seventh Circuit's Opinion -] And civil rights advocates are happy the Indiana law is under scrutiny as its law is among the most severely restrictive in the nation.

The let's-allow-the-blacks-to-vote crowd (those crazy liberals!) appeal to a Constitutional right to vote derived from the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and point out that undue burdens like the Indiana law violate these rights of the First and Fourteenth Amendments for segments of the electorate.

The case will likely hinge on whether the Indiana voter ID statute is deemed reasonable in advancing state interests in preventing non-existent voter fraud and administering stable, secure elections viz a vis the liberty interests of voters facing undue burdens in casting their votes offsetting the state interests (the partisan intent of the state law will be of no consequence for the majority of this U.S. Supreme Court).

Judge Posner writing the majority Seventh Circuit's opinion concludes:
"Perhaps the Indiana law can be improved - what can't be? - but the details for regulating elections must be left to the states ... (Article I, Section 4, U.S. Constitution)".

You see, Posner has never been a freedom rider, hence his opinion that the benefits of voting are elusive.

Let's handicap the case before the corrupt U.S. Supreme Court with a wild guess:

- Stephen Gerald Breyer: Will vote to reverse.
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Will vote to reverse.
- David H. Souter: Will vote to reverse.
- John Paul Stevens: Will vote to reverse.
- Anthony Kennedy: ????????
- Antonin Scalia: Affirm racist state law.
- Clarence Thomas (yuck): Affirm racist state law.
- John Roberts: Affirm racist state law.
- Samuel Alito: Affirm racist state law.

Maybe we'll get a surprise next spring, but betting on this case would be tantamount to betting on a Don King-promoted fight held in Las Vegas.

###