Ga. Court Tosses Voter ID Challenge

Lawyer Blogs

[##_1L|1269336848.jpg|width="101" height="102" alt=""|_##]The Georgia Supreme Court threw out a challenge Monday to the state's voter ID law, but sidestepped a decision on the law's validity by ruling that the plaintiff didn't have legal standing to challenge it. The court's unanimous opinion reversed a decision in September by Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford, who ruled the law was unconstitutional and an undue burden on voters. After that ruling, the State Election Board decided not to require voters to show a photo ID to cast a ballot in the November elections.

With another challenge to the law pending in federal court, it was unclear if the state could begin requiring voters to show identification at the polls.

For months, lawyers have been battling over the law, one of several passed recently across the country.

Opponents claim the photo ID law will disenfranchise minorities, the poor and the elderly who don't have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID.

The law's mostly Republican supporters say it is needed to prevent voter fraud and preserve the integrity of the electoral system. No examples of in-person voter fraud have been presented, though the proposal's backers often mention the threat of noncitizens casting illegal ballots.

Monday's ruling, written by Justice Harold Melton, said that plaintiff Rosalind Lake was not harmed by the voter ID law and lacked standing to challenge it since she was exempt as a first-time voter.

The Secretary of State's office, which enforces voting law, did not immediately comment. But the law's sponsor, state Sen. Cecil Staton, said the court's opinion reinforced the Legislature's intent when it passed the law last year.

"It gives credence to our position all along that the argument that there are many, many people who are harmed by this law is just not correct," said Staton, a Macon Republican. "They didn't even have a plaintiff who's been harmed."

State Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, vowed to "continue to fight this battle in federal court."

At the federal level, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy struck down an earlier version of the law in 2005, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The Legislature addressed his complaints in a subsequent version, but he blocked the law again in September, saying the bill isn't in the public's interest. An appeal is pending.

Other states have faced similar legal battles over requiring voters to have photo IDs.

In Arizona, the law survived court challenges, and voters have had to show a photo ID to vote since 2006. In Missouri, the state Supreme Court in October struck down a law that required voters there to show a photo identification.

A federal appeals court upheld Indiana's voter ID law in January, saying it has the potential to do more good than harm. A month later, a New Mexico federal judge struck down the city of Albuquerque's voter ID ordinance.

Related listings

  • Enron investors await court ruling

    Enron investors await court ruling

    Lawyer Blogs 06/13/2007

    [##_1L|1049464065.jpg|width="142" height="117" alt=""|_##]In a lawsuit that harks back to the Enron Corp. scandal, the Bush administration is at odds with the federal agency that oversees securities markets and with state attorneys general and consum...

  • Newspaper sues state Supreme Court

    Newspaper sues state Supreme Court

    Lawyer Blogs 06/13/2007

    A small Kane County newspaper and its former columnist have accused the biggest names in the state judiciary of violating Illinois citizens' basic constitutional rights.In the process, the state court system returns to uncharted waters.The Shaw Subur...

  • Attorney's Wife Indicted on Criminal Charges

    Attorney's Wife Indicted on Criminal Charges

    Lawyer Blogs 06/12/2007

     A year after her former employer accused her of embezzling funds from her late husband's New Hampshire law firm, Deborah Woods, 52, of Stratham has been indicted on criminal charges in the case. The Rockingham Country Grand Jury indicted Woods ...

Illinois Work Injury Lawyers – Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD.

Accidents in the workplace are often caused by unsafe work conditions arising from ignoring safety rules, overlooking maintenance or other negligence of those in management. While we are one of the largest firms in Illinois dedicated solely to the representation of injured workers, we pride ourselves on the personal, one-on-one approach we deliver to each client.

Work accidents can cause serious injuries and sometimes permanent damage. Some extremely serious work injuries can permanently hinder a person’s ability to get around and continue their daily duties. Factors that affect one’s quality of life such as place of work, relationships with friends and family, and social standing can all be taken away quickly by a work injury. Although, you may not be able to recover all of your losses, you may be entitled to compensation as a result of your work injury. Krol, Bongiorno & Given, LTD. provides informed advocacy in all kinds of workers’ compensation claims, including:

• Injuries to the back and neck, including severe spinal cord injuries
• Serious head injuries
• Heart problems resulting from workplace activities
• Injuries to the knees, elbows, shoulders and other joints
• Injuries caused by repetitive movements

For Illinois Workers’ Compensation claims, you will ALWAYS cheat yourself if you do not hire an experienced attorney. When you hire Krol, Bongiorno & Given, Ltd, you will have someone to guide you through the process, and when it is time to settle, we will add value to your case IN EXCESS of our fee. In the last few years, employers and insurance carriers have sought to advance the argument that when you settle a case without an attorney, your already low settlement should be further reduced by 20% so that you do not get a “windfall.” Representing yourself in Illinois is a lose-lose proposition.

Business News

New York & New Jersey Family Law Matters We represent our clients in all types of proceedings that include termination of parental rights. >> read