Election law challenges headed to U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court returns to work on Monday with its “long conference” of petitions pending before the court to review.

But the Court’s new term is potentially one in which election law challenges may predominate.

On Thursday, the state of Ohio asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block the federal court ruling earlier this month restoring early voting in Ohio, and to consider taking on the dispute itself immediately. Voters in Ohio start casting ballots on Tuesday for this year’s general election. Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog reports,Ohio challenges early-voting mandate (UPDATED):

The application (DeWine v. Ohio State Conference of the NAACP, 14A336) argued that the court order intrudes deeply into the state’s power to run elections, and does so based upon flawed readings of the Constitution and federal voting rights law.  The Ohio legislature also has filed its own plea for delay (14A337).

Ohio officials have sought review of this dispute before the en banc Sixth Circuit, but rushed to the Supreme Court with a plea for postponement of the early-voting order to get the Justices involved as quickly as possible.  Going beyond the request for delay, the state suggested, as an alternative, that the Court grant review of the case now to ensure that it gets settled swiftly.

The application is the first seeking to draw the Justices into this year’s spreading controversy, in several states, over changes in election law that challengers say are designed to narrow the right to vote, especially for minority voters.

After Senior U.S. District Court Judge Peter C. Economus of Columbus early this month ordered the state to reinstate the full thirty-five-day voting period, Ohio officials failed to get that court or the Sixth Circuit to postpone the requirement.  A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit then upheld the judge’s order, leading Ohio officials to seek reconsideration by the full Sixth Circuit.  That plea has not yet been decided.

* * *

UPDATE: Justice Elena Kagan has called for a response to the state officials’ application (14A 336) by 5 p.m. Saturday.  She cited the uncertainty about when the Sixth Circuit would act on a pending plea by state officials for en banc rehearing, as well as timing issues.  Her order made no mention of the separate delay request by the state legislature (14A337), presumably because the Sixth Circuit did not rule on a separate appeal by the legislature, but treated the legislature as only an amicus in the state officials’ case.

Wisconsin’s voter ID law may be headed to the Supreme Court after the Seventh Circuit declined an en banc hearing from a three judge panel that allowed the voter ID law to go into effect. The New York Times reports, Federal Court Declines to Take Up Wisconsin’s Voter ID Law:

[A] federal appeals court on Friday narrowly decided against hearing arguments on a recently instituted photo identification requirement for the state’s voters.

In an order that evenly split the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit here, the judges turned down pleas for a hearing by the full court from people who argue that the requirement has created confusion and chaos. The decision came about a month before in-person early voting begins and after some in Wisconsin may have mailed in absentee ballots.

The matter could ultimately wind up before the United States Supreme Court, and the Wisconsin case is seen as noteworthy among the numerous legal fights playing out around the country over voting regulations.

* * *

On Friday, the larger group of Seventh Circuit judges was divided, 5 to 5, effectively ending the possibility of a new hearing before the judges. They offered no reason for their votes, though an order said the judges might file explanations in the coming days.

* * *

Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, which had pushed for a new hearing, said his group was considering all legal options, including an appeal to the Supreme Court. “Allowing this law to take effect so close to the midterm election is a recipe for chaos, voter confusion and disenfranchisement,” he said.

This past Monday the voter ID case in Texas concluded trial. Now it is in the hands of the Court to decide. Fate of Texas’ Tough Voter ID Law in Judge’s Hands:

The fate of Texas’ tough voter ID law moved into the hands of a federal judge Monday, following a trial that the U.S. Justice Department said exposed another chapter in the state’s troubling history of discrimination in elections.

 * * *

Whether Texas will also get a ruling before then is unclear. U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos ended the two-week trial in Corpus Christi without signaling when she’ll make a decision, meaning that as of now, an estimated 13.6 million registered Texas voters will need a photo ID to cast a ballot in November.

The U.S. Justice Department, which is fighting the law, began closing arguments by flashing onto a projection screen how many eligible voters it says lack an acceptable form of ID: 608,470, a revised lower number than what the DOJ and other law opponents said when the trial began. It also argued that black residents in Texas are four times as likely not to have an ID as white residents, with Hispanics being three times as likely not to have an ID. Both minority groups are traditionally Democratic voters.

“It imposes punishing costs. The burden is far beyond what is usual to vote, and under the circumstances, unsupportable,” said Richard Dellheim, a Justice Department attorney.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder took the unusual step of bringing the weight of his federal office into Texas after the U.S. Supreme Court last year struck down the heart of the U.S. Voting Rights Act, which blocked Texas and eight other states with histories of discrimination from changing their election laws without approval from the DOJ or a federal court. Prior to that landmark ruling, Texas had been barred from enforcing voter ID.

* * *

Nineteen states have laws that require voters to show photo identification at the polls, and Texas is among four states where legal fights are pending over the issue, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Voter ID laws in North Carolina and Arkansas are also set go to trial before the end of September.

The U.S. Supreme Court already has on its docket two redistricting cases from the state of Alabama, Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, challenging the state’s redistricting plan on the grounds of racial gerrymandering.

Arizona’s petition in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (Docket No. 13-1314) has been distributed for the “long conference” on September 29.  A second appeal from Arizona, Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (Docket No. 14-232), has a deadline to complete briefing by October 29.

There is also the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision still pending in Kobach v. U.S. Election Assistance Commission, to which Arizona is a party, which is certain to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

There are several other cases pending in the federal district courts and courts of appeal.