Will the Supreme Court's recent decision to uphold a facial challenge to Indiana's law requiring voters to present a picture ID before they vote have any effect on the vote today? And has the Supreme Court, the last line of defense in upholding individual rights, bought into the Republican's most successful voter suppression scheme?  

The Toledo Blade editorialized yesterday that,  "...the GOP's concocted argument that voter ID requirements are necessary to deter the possibility of voter fraud found a simpathetic audience among the justices."

Republican operatives through an organized strategy in 2005, helped Republican leaning state legislatures, as in Ohio, pass into law restrictive ID requirements. Although the Court, in this case, chose not to see this as a burden to certain minorities, the poor, students and elderly voters, others, including the plaintiffs, perceive it as a kind of "poll tax," that even if the ID were free, could cause other burdens (maybe not understood by those more fortunate).

I lost my respect and reverence for the Supreme Court long ago so I was among the large group of unsurprised yesterday when the court upheld a law erected as a barrier to voting - Indiana's strict voter photo ID law.  Not only have the justices left only the thinnest thread of hope for future challenges but, more importantly, they have encouraged those who seek to build more barriers to the polling place.  My state, Virginia, has an ID requirement.  I'm sure it won't be too long before it's amended to require a photo.  Poll tax, anyone?

While there's been a lot of legal analysis whizzing across my screen - "facial challenge" (is that acne?) -- I liked this quote:

Update: Here's what Justice Kennedy said in opposition to televising the Supreme Court:

Collegial dynamic?  What about the dynamic of open government?   And if he's so worried about respecting the separation of powers, he should have voted against the Court electing the president in 2000.

Virtually all the justices of the Supreme Court, past and present, have opposed letting all Americans into their oral argument sessions.  There have been some gestures toward openness, such as audio in some cases, but right now the only way the public can see the court in action is to travel to Washington, DC and wait on line for the few seats that are available.  As the WaPo said in an editorial:

Congress resisted TV for decades, arguing that public exposure would somehow undermine their deliberations.  Of course, televised proceedings of Congress are now an accepted part of our political life - CSPAN's Brian Lamb recently received a Medal of Freedom for his work on television Congress.  The Supreme Court is already too isolated from Americans' life -- they should bring in the cameras.  Maybe they'll even figure out this YouTube thing that everyone's talking about.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer spoke to the audience at the National Conference On Citizenship last Thursday in the National Archives.  He focused on the central role of democracy in the US Constitution, saying he felt all of his colleagues in the Supreme Court would probably agree even as they differ on interpreting its parts.  This may seem fair enough.  Indeed, he made a point of stating the obviousness of his argument.  Democracy is the fundamental principle our Constitution guards.

The problem is, like Justice Breyer, 600,000 citizens in the District of Columbia are denied democratic representation in the House of Representatives.  I asked him what he thought of that.  Unfortunately, he couldn't answer the question, despite the First Amendment, as he said Supreme Court Justices have to remain publicly impartial.

For now, he has to wait for the Senate, and the recalcitrant minority therein, to let DC Voting Rights pass so that he can exercize his Constitutional duty to give his opinion (should someone be so undemocratic as to challenge it).  For his, my and all our sakes, I hope to see that day soon.

If the old adage is true, then when one door closes, another opens.  That's my hope, and that's the essence of what USA Today argued for, in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow sham issue ads in the days preceding an election.  If we can't restrict big money flowing into political campaigns, then as their headline reads, "Give candidates option of public financing for races."

But if it increases the role of big money in campaigns--which has already turned off much of the public, and even many lawmakers--it makes "Clean Elections" even more attractive.  As USA Today puts it,

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC, a challenge to the provision in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, or the McCain-Feingold law) restricting special interest groups from using general funds to run "issue ads" in the days before an election.

More information about this provision and Common Cause's response to this challenge can be found here.  Countless organizations on both sides of the issue have signed onto amicus briefs, including Common Cause, and even the editorial boards have weighed in (here and here, for example) - but we'll have to wait until probably June before hearing their decision.

The big question marks, as in a lot of the cases now coming before the Court, are new Justices Roberts and Alito.  Common Cause was the leading force behind the substantive campaign finance reform that grew into BCRA, so we're paying very close attention to this situation and will, of course, keep you updated on how it develops.

On Friday, a three-judge federal panel redrew several Texas Congressional districts after a long partisan battle with Election Day implications.  The Supreme Court declared the existing map, redrawn in 2003 by the Republican controlled state Legislature, unconstitutional because it significantly weakened Hispanic strength in the 23rd Congressional District - a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

The expansive 23rd District currently stretches from El Paso County in the West to parts of Webb and Bexar (San Antonio) Counties in the South.  Under the new plans, Webb County has been moved entirely into the 28th District, and Kerr, Kendall, Bandera, and Real Counties have been added to the 21st District.

Additionally, several solidly Hispanic neighborhoods in southern Bexar Country have been added to the 23rd District.  Hispanics will constitute 61 percent of the voting-age population in the revised 23rd District, a 10 percent increase from the 2004 figure.

For more information about Friday's decision, check out the panel's ruling and the new map (pdf).

Editorialist Steven Chapman writes that the Supreme Court Texas redistricting decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry threatens American democracy. In the 2004 U.S. House races, only 5 of the 392 incumbents running for reelection lost to challengers. With its majority opinion allowing for the Texas legislature's partisan redistricting, the Supreme Court gave the states the power to secure offices for the dominant party. Chapman writes:

Texas Republicans claimed that Texas' previous districting map was unfair, giving Democrats more seats than their vote total reflected. Chapman writes, "But it's no solution to replace one grossly unfair partisan reapportionment with another. The winners change, but the losers - the people of Texas - remain the same."

You can read the editorial here.

The article originally appeared in the Chicago Tribune.