PRESIDENT OBAMAS ONE-BRANCH-SHOW

By Trevor C. Sanders March 17, 2012 Yet again, The Obama Administrations Justice Department insists on continuing the assault on states voter-identification laws, and the most recent casualty is Texas. Liberal partisans cry foul when would-be voters are required to produce state-issued identification before going into the polls to cast their votes. Nevermind that voter fraud is real or that the nations voting system should keep pace with available technology to ensure accuracy. Of course, maintaining the integrity of the election process and preventing voter fraud at any level is important for both political parties so the election is not stolen. (We all recall that a favorite gripe by Democrats is that the 2000 Presidential Election was stolen by George W. Bush). While this controversy boils, one wonders if President Obamas Executive Branch presumes that they are a one-branch-show. The fact that the United States Supreme Court has recently ruled on this exact issue in a case called Crawford v. Marion County Election Board in 2008 is conveniently ignored. Apparently, a ruling by a coequal branch of government that is contrary to President Obamas agenda is not enough of a deterrent. (And this is coming from a President who professes his knowledge of and fidelity to the Constitution). The Crawford case involved an Indiana law that required voters to present stateissued identification, (which was offered free of charge by the State of Indiana), before casting their votes in person. Democrat groups sued, claiming the law (1) substantially burdened the right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) was not a necessary or appropriate way to avoid election fraud; (3) arbitrarily disenfranchised prospective voters who did not possess such an identification; and (4) placed an unjustified burden on those who couldnt obtain the free state-issued identification. The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and upheld the Indiana law, while focusing on Indianas needs to modernize elections, prevent voter fraud, and to safeguard voter confidence in the representative government system. Although the Court noted the partisan lines upon which the votes for the state law were cast, the Court still observed that Indianas identified reasons for passing their law were non-

discriminatory, neutral, and that the law imposes only a limited burden on voters rights. Notably, the lead Crawford opinion was authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the former leader of the so-called liberal wing of the Court. Justice Scalia commented in concurrence that the voting law uniformly applied to all Indiana voters but simply impacted them in different ways (depending on who needed to obtain or renew a valid state identification). President Obama and his Administration are deliberately ignoring the Supreme Courts ruling and assaulting state voting laws. President Obamas arrogance towards a co-equal branch of government is stunning. Contrary to his misguided belief, the Executive Branch is not superior to the other branches of the federal government. He claims to understand the Constitution and its separation of powers, so why not simply follow it?

Authors Contact Information: Trevor C. Sanders 166 W. 700 N., Apt. A Logan, UT 84321 (435) 773-2200 trevor.c.sanders@gmail.com

Authors Biography: The author, Trevor C. Sanders, is a Hurricane, Utah, native, and is completing his final semester of law school. He anticipates taking the Utah Bar Examination in July 2012, and intends to practice law in Southern Utah.