This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/10/voter-id-law-blocked-us-supreme-court-wisconsin-texas
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Voter ID law blocked by US supreme court | Voter ID law blocked by US supreme court |
| (about 4 hours later) | |
| Judges in the US have struck down a Texas law requiring voters to show identification at polls, saying it placed an unconstitutional burden on them, and blocked a similar requirement in Wisconsin. | |
| The supreme court blocked the Wisconsin law on Thursday, with three conservative members dissenting, granting a last-minute request by civil rights groups seeking to block an appeals court ruling that the law could be implemented. | The supreme court blocked the Wisconsin law on Thursday, with three conservative members dissenting, granting a last-minute request by civil rights groups seeking to block an appeals court ruling that the law could be implemented. |
| On the same day, a federal judge struck down a Texas law requiring voters to show identification at polls, saying it was unconstitutional and discriminated against minorities. | On the same day, a federal judge struck down a Texas law requiring voters to show identification at polls, saying it was unconstitutional and discriminated against minorities. |
| The action means the Wisconsin law, which requires voters to present photo identification when they cast ballots, will not be in effect in the runup to the elections next month. | The action means the Wisconsin law, which requires voters to present photo identification when they cast ballots, will not be in effect in the runup to the elections next month. |
| “Today’s order puts the brakes on the last-minute disruption and voter chaos created by this law going into effect so close to the election,” said Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union voting rights project. The project and other groups said the law would sow confusion at the polls and reduce votes. | |
| Justice Samuel Alito wrote a brief dissenting opinion, which was joined by fellow conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He wrote that although it was “particularly troubling” that absentee ballots had been sent before the election without notifying voters of the identification requirements, there was no legal justification for blocking the law. | Justice Samuel Alito wrote a brief dissenting opinion, which was joined by fellow conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. He wrote that although it was “particularly troubling” that absentee ballots had been sent before the election without notifying voters of the identification requirements, there was no legal justification for blocking the law. |
| The Wisconsin attorney general said he would explore alternatives to address the court’s concerns regarding absentee ballots. “I believe the voter ID law is constitutional and nothing in the court’s order suggests otherwise,” JB Van Hollen said. | The Wisconsin attorney general said he would explore alternatives to address the court’s concerns regarding absentee ballots. “I believe the voter ID law is constitutional and nothing in the court’s order suggests otherwise,” JB Van Hollen said. |
| Wisconsin’s is one of several similar voter ID rules that have become a political and racial flashpoint across the US. Wisconsin and other states have argued they need such rules to prevent voter fraud. | Wisconsin’s is one of several similar voter ID rules that have become a political and racial flashpoint across the US. Wisconsin and other states have argued they need such rules to prevent voter fraud. |
| The Texas ruling followed a two-week trial in Corpus Christi that challenged the controversial law. The US district judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos also found that it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. | The Texas ruling followed a two-week trial in Corpus Christi that challenged the controversial law. The US district judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos also found that it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. |