Strictly political

The issue has largely been drowned out of this election, but every once in a while, in between all the diatribes about lowering taxes and curbing illegal immigration, Republican candidates will remind voters that they support the kind of strict constructionist judges supposedly needed to preserve the Constitution.\nI am usually not very impressed when I hear a Republican crusading against “liberal activism” in our high courts, mostly because, even if the logic of some of these liberal judges seems occasionally fuzzy, I usually agree with the spirit of their decisions.\nThe question of whether strict constructionist judges are more objective and reasonable than their liberal counterparts is hardly a trivial one – if their narrow interpretation is applied selectively and for political reasons, then surely we don’t need any more conservative judges to join the Supreme Court’s already right-leaning majority. \nCurrently, a case on voter ID laws brought before the court seems to indicate that these conservative judges can be both partisan and shallow. \nThe case originated right here in Indiana, where a law was recently passed requiring anyone voting to show a government-issued photo ID. Supporters of the measure say it would rapidly deter voter fraud, but the purpose behind the law seems purely partisan.\nThe law would work to prevent minorities, the elderly and the poor from voting because they might not have the time or transportation to get themselves an ID. Ironically, some counties in Indiana require government ID to get a birth certificate, which is itself a requirement for obtaining ID cards! \nThe voters hurt the most by the new restriction – minorities and the poor – are the ones who tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat, so it is no surprise that not a single Democrat in the Indiana State Legislature supported the bill, nor that not a single Republican opposed it. Even Judge Richard A. Posner, who wrote the majority opinion upholding this law for the U.S. Court of Appeals, admitted the law would fall more heavily on the Democrats.\nNo case of impersonating a voter has ever been brought in Indiana. Granted, this kind of fraud is probably hard to catch, but it hardly seems logical to limit voting rights based on the suspicion of fraud. The fact that Republicans in some states have loosened the restrictions on absentee ballots when plenty of cases of absentee voter fraud have actually been brought deepens my skepticism. \nConservative Judges like Antonin Scalia seem focused on the issue of “facial challenge,” basically arguing that because the current case wasn’t brought by a discriminated Hoosier, the court doesn’t have the right to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Apparently they want to wait until elections are already thrown before admitting what is obvious now. \nIf I see a 5-4 decision along ideological lines affirming the Indiana ID law, I will know that five conservative judges on the Supreme Court are more than enough for me.