Posted on 05/30/2008 10:19:56 AM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
Georgia Democrats just can't take no for an answer. Despite a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of requiring voters to produce state-issued picture IDs at the polls, the Democratic Party of Georgia has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's voter ID law.
Snip
The party of fraud and lawyers have little choice except sue ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The dumbass donkeys would have better luck pissing in the wind. It has been settled by SCOTUS. It is a done deal.
Someone badly needs to ask Obama his opinion on this stunt....he’s a constitutional law professer, you know!
By all means, let’s not discourage these Democrats from showing their true colors. I might even send them twenty bucks to go toward their legal expenses.
Again? I thought this had already been to the highest appeals court here and shut down. These people pull out lawyers like guns.
Georgia Democrats just can’t take no for an answer.
Despite a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the constitutionality of requiring voters to produce state-issued picture IDs at the polls, the Democratic Party of Georgia has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state’s voter ID law.
The Supreme Court ruled in an Indiana case on April 28 and the decision was cheered by Georgia Republicans because it seemed to protect the state’s 2006 Photo ID Act.
Emmet Bondurant, attorney for the state Democratic Party, said that Indiana case actually opened the door to get the Georgia law declared unconstitutional by the Georgia Supreme Court.
“Contrary to everything you’ve read in the newspapers, the Indiana cases is not fatal to the Georgia case — it helps us,” said Bondurant who filed the lawsuit last Friday.
The Georgia law already was declared unconstitutional once by Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford but the Georgia Supreme Court dismissed the case last year because it said the plaintiff, Rosalind L. Lake of Atlanta, had no standing to sue. The court said Lake could have voted without the ID when she filed the lawsuit and as a result could not challenge the law’s constitutionality.
In the Indiana case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the state Democratic Party had standing to bring the lawsuit. Bondurant said that should help the new Georgia case clear the hurdle that derailed the last one. The new case will also be heard by Bedford.
Secretary State Karen Handel, a Republican, called the lawsuit “extraordinarily outrageous and frivolous.”
In September, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy in Rome threw out a federal suit challenging the law, praising the state’s education efforts to let voters know about the new ID requirements.
“This law has been litigated every way,” she said. “It is relevant that three courts have looked at this issue.”
But Bondurant said the case will be decided under the Georgia constitution, which he said permits any 18-year-old citizen the right to vote as long as he or she meets minimum residency requirements, has registered to vote and hasn’t been convicted of a felony or been found mentally incompetent.
“This case is explicitly limited to provisions of the state Constitution,” he said.
The issue is highly partisan. Republican claim the photo IDs help prevent fraud and Democrats claim the law is a Republican effort to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters because the poor people and minorities are less likely to have a drivers’ licenses and may not have obtained a free voter ID card at voter registration offices. Under the former law, voters could use any of 17 forms of identification, including non-photo ID such as a utility bill or Social Security card, to prove their identity at the polls.
Handel, whose office oversees elections, has called the photo ID a “common sense” requirement, and she notes Democrats have not produced a voter who has been blocked from casting a ballot by the law.
“This is politics at its absolute worst,” she said.
State Democratic Party Spokesman Martin Matheny said Handel was responding like a partisan despite being the elected official whose job is to oversee fair elections.
“We’re going to fight this in the courts,” he said. “She really needs not to use the office for partisan attacks.”
It is 'highly partisan' because the Democrats want it to be. It feeds their base that wants to feel like underdogs who are being protected by their party. About the only LEGITIMATE voters I have heard being harmed by this were retired Catholic Nuns in a retirement home who had no official work history. They were denied the vote by a fellow nun in the Indiana Primary. The sane nun also said that they would get it fixed for the November Election, it was just too short notice from the SCOTUS decision.
As far as the rest, if you can't produce something that is acceptable like this, how can you be living here LEGALLY?!?! Of course, that is the rub, the ability to 'turn out the vote' by getting the winos and illegals to the polls and not have to cobble-up fake IDs that leave a paper trace somewhere.
Of course what is left oh so quiet is the fact that if you haven't made any effort in advance to get proper ID, how likely are you to be interested in voting to begin with? Thus my suspicions are the innate desire of the Democrat Party Politicos to make voting the party line easy (they fought hard to keep the single 'straight-line' vote option) AND quick (No ID required) .
The Georgia Constitution and state case law can supercede the US Supreme Court in this case since there is already precedence for such determinations that state Constitutions can increase the rights of voters regarding voting rights.
So... anyone know the case law in Georgia?
The GA Dimwit Party isn’t looking to overturn the law either. They are hoping for a sympathetic judge to simply stay ID reqs till after the election. Look for them to do this with similar laws in other states.
I’m sure a little digging will turn up the DNC or Obamahammod’s operatives behind this.
Nothing could be more revealing than the abject fear of the democratic party at the prospect of facing a fair election.
Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
If these moonbats manage to shop the case to the right judge...well, we've seen that movie before.
If I am not mistaken, this is the key to the Indiana law working.
A procedure known in Federal Court as a Rule 11 action.
gotta let the rats rule for awhile so they can get a few more kids killed, ,,,and other citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.