SOME GEORGIA VOTER ID ACT CASE LINKS

A federal district judge granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Georgia's new law requiring voters to present a picture ID at the polls. The opinion in the case, Common Cause / Georgia v. Billups, is available in parts at Votelaw, here. For more documents in the case, see Ohio State's page on the litigation here.

For some commentary, see Bob Bauer's commentary here, (via Rick Hasen here), and Dan Tokaji's overview and analysis here. For an argument against the district court's decision, see Joseph Knippenberg here. Note especially the way that Prof. Knippenberg would like to reduce judicial oversight over voting issues by restricting courts to something like a rational basis review of voting regulations like Georgia's:

The judge doesn’t, for example, consider the way in which requiring a photo ID would make it more difficult for fraudulently registered voters to consummate their fraud. In doing so, he treats registration fraud and voting fraud as if they are two entirely separate issues, stripping the state legislature of their ability to craft policy reflective of their observations. (emphasis added)

One of the basic principals of constitutional law in the area of voting rights is that the legislature is not due the same kind of deference as it is in, say, economic regulation. Mere "observations" by the legislature are not enough. Instead, the legislature must meet a higher burden of proof if it is going to burden voters with new requirements. The district court spends a lot of time in the opinion laying out the state's proffered facts and finds them wanting - particularly since the law is supposed to be about voter fraud but only deals with one kind of voter fraud (in-person voting by impersonation) that no one offered credible evidence of in court, and leaves untouched other kinds of voting fraud.

It's not hard to see why courts should be more suspicious of legislative restrictions on voting rights than of legislative regulation of local industries. Legislative majorities are always going to be tempted to use regulation of the franchise to solidify their majorities. In order to prevent that kind of self-dealing, some kind of strong judicial oversight is appropriate, even if it subjects judges to complaints of "political" decisionmaking (the word is Knippenberg's).

MORE (12:51pm 10/22): See Joseph Knippenberg's blog post on the case, here. Because the judge is the cousin of a prominent GA politician, Knippenberg wants to impugn his objectivity.