Talk:Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

How did they decide which opinion was plurity and which was concurance?
With both the plurity decision & the concuring opinion apprently having an equal number of votes (3); I'm wondering how they determined which was plurity and which was concuring. Jon (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Plurity usually deals more with the particular case at hand where as the concurrent opinion is a more general note but still in support of the plurity decision. Scalia said more than just ruling on this case, it should not only be upheld but SCOTUS (and apellete courts in general) should refrain from involving itself in local election law. His argument is based in that constituionally we are a republic, effectively now a democracy, but regardless we have never been a jurisocracy. --Lemmey talk 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

24.166.3.219 - criticized wrong case description, added case updates
Discussion that occurred in the main article page has been moved here. Thanks! Thisis borin9  05:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Court dealt with the claim that voter ID laws demand the strictest of scrutiny by courts, because these laws could potentially disenfranchise voters. [this is wrong, that claim was not at issue in the case. the issue was whether voter ID violates the Firs tor Fourteenth Amendment.] All nine Justices disagreed with that argument."

[breyer expressed no opinion as to standard of review.]

"Even the dissenters in the case rejected the premise of strict scrutiny for voter ID laws. Justice Stephen Breyer, a dissenter, wrote approvingly of voter ID laws in Georgia and Florida."

[fund is a voter ID supporter and this is not neutral commentary. breyer said gerogia and florida have systems that aren't as bad as indiana's.]

"More than 20 states have passed voter ID laws. Those opposing the Indiana statute argued that voter ID laws impose an undue burden and disenfranchise some voters.  They argued that even though Indiana offers free photo ID to qualified voters, the documents needed to obtain an ID&mdash;such as a birth certificate&mdash;could require payment or be an inconvenience."

[nobody made this argument - this article is hopelessly biased.]

John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that these burdens are limited to a small percentage of population and offset by the burden of reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:


 * The relevant burdens...

[the lead opinion by stevens was decided on a procedural point; that plaintiffs has erred by filing a facial challenge while admitting the statute ws constitutional for most people. this controlling opinion did not decide the merits; those are left for another day. the case is significant to constitutional scholars for two reasons: 1) it continued the trend of washington state grange to limit the use of facial challenges in first amendment overbreadth cases; 2) it is the first case applying the anderson v calabrezze balancing test to an equal protection claim or to an elections case outside of ballot access cases.]

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would only encourage more litigation:


 * It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class.

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, declares the voter ID laws unconstitutional, concluding "the state interests fail to justify the practical limitations placed on the right to vote, and the law imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old."

[In a later case, League of Women Voters v Rokita, the voter ID statute was found unconstitutional under the state constitution. That case is now on appeal. Another case, Robbin Stewart v Marion County, with new federal and state grounds has been filed by a voter whose votes were not counted due to voter ID. http://joellpalmer.blogspot.com]

24.166.3.219 (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Last source
I tagged the last source as dubious for two reasons: (1) it's no longer accessible online; and (2) it is supposedly an article from 2005, so I'm not sure how it could discuss developments in the 2007-08 term as the main text says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorneuron (talk • contribs) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much reliance on primary sources?
Having reviewed WP policy on use of primary sources, I don't see any problems in this article. Primary sources are cited only to corroborate simple statements of fact, without any added original interpretation which would violate WP:OR policy. Nor is there a lack of secondary sources. I propose that the tag (dated July, 2016) be removed. What say you, editors? WCCasey (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)