Supreme Court to Take on Voter ID, Lethal Injections and Evidence Rules

The new term of the US Supreme Court opens soon, and the Supremes have said there are a few lower court rulings that need their attention. They want to review an appeals court ruling that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law. They will revisit the death penalty yet again in an appeal from two convicted murderers in Kentucky who claim lethal injection is an unconstitutional way to execute a prisoner. And they will look at a case where a man was stopped for driving on a suspended license and then got nailed for possession of crack cocaine. It’ll be a busy session.

Reuters says the “Indiana law [is] considered the most restrictive in the nation requiring voters to present a photo ID issued by the state or federal government, such as a driver’s license or a passport.” This is a highly partisan issue, since those who are most able to produce such documents tend to vote Republican. What is interesting is how very little voter fraud prosecutions the US has – is the Indiana rule just a law preventing what doesn’t happen much anyway? And since these documents require a fee to be paid to the state, this could make it a poll tax, which is contrary to the rules.

The lethal injection case doesn’t challenge execution as a punishment but rather the administration of lethal compounds to cause death. The convicted killers, Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling, point to two botched executions in Ohio and Florida using the same compounds Kentucky uses. They argue that the two hours it took one of the prisoners to die amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment.” The court will probably fudge this one, ordering a different mix of drugs to be used, because to ban lethal injection altogether would create huge problems for the 37 states that use it as punishment.

The AP reports, “Many state and federal courts say that failing to follow state law in making an arrest does not require that subsequently seized evidence be suppressed. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled otherwise in the case of David Lee Moore, and state officials asked the justices to consider the issue. Two police detectives stopped Moore for driving on a suspended license, but under Virginia law they should have issued him a summons and released him rather than taking him into custody. The Virginia Supreme Court said the officers could not lawfully conduct the search that followed his arrest, which turned up crack cocaine. A trial judge ruled against Moore's challenge to the drug charge and he was convicted and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. The Virginia Supreme Court subsequently ordered the charge dismissed and Moore was freed.” This seems to be pretty straightforward – an illegal search based on an illegal arrest is pretty open and shut.

The court is expected to hear these cases in the next couple of months, and sometime in January, the country can hear the opinions. If the Indiana law is tossed out, the next election is going to be very messy. eason.

© Copyright 2007 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home