Tennessee's Voter ID Law Could Face Potential Legal Action

The Times Free Press reported recently that the controversial Voter ID law enacted by Governor Bill Haslam may face a challenge in court. While those who disagree with the law are not saying much, it has been confirmed that a "law suit is being contemplated." Attorney Gerard Stranch of Nashville and general counsel for the Tennessee Democratic Party confirmed the potential for a law suit, but said that he hoped the legislature would change the law this month.

The controversial law, which went into effect on January 1, requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. Those supporting the law state it is necessary for preventing voter fraud. Interestingly enough, those in opposition to the law can only recognize one documented occurrence of voter fraud in the state of Tennessee. What many believe is the real reason for the law is an alleged national GOP effort to "disenfranchise millions of minority, elderly, young, and low-income voters across the U.S. before the upcoming 2012 election." Often times, these laws have a disparate impact on the socio-economic groups mentioned above who are more likely to lack the resources necessary to obtain a government-issued photo ID whether it be a lack of funds or a lack of proper documentation.

Many believe the recent rejection by the U.S. Department of Justice of a South Carolina law similar to Tennessee's will provoke the Tennessee Legislature to re-evaluate the law and eventually overturn it. The basis for this rejection is that the South Carolina law discriminated against minorities. According to proponents of the Tennessee law, South Carolina is under a different scrutiny than Tennessee when it comes to enacting Election laws. While South Carolina must seek approval by the U.S. Department of Justice before enacting any Election laws, Tennessee is not required to seek such approval. Because of this, supporters of the law believe legal action would be pointless.

Supporters of the law point to many efforts the Tennessee government has made to make this requirement easier on its citizens. For instance, driver services centers will be open the first Saturday of every month to help those in need of an ID obtain one. An ID issued for non driving purposes is also available for no charge unlike a driver's license. These efforts, supporters claim, prove that this law was not enacted with the purpose of creating a disparate impact on minorities and the elderly.

The citizens of the State of Tennessee will most likely have to wait this one out to see what happens. From the looks of it, either the TN Legislature will revisit the law later this month or those against the law will likely bring legal action. We'll keep you updated on its progress throughout the coming months.

U.S. Senate Passes The National Defense Authorization Act

The Huffington Post reports today that the U.S. Senate voted 93 to 7 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). In an interesting article featured on the American Constitution Society Blog, Stephen Vladeck, a law professor and Associate Dean at American University Washington College of Law, highlights some of the more controversial portions of the NDAA.

The NDAA, passed just over a decade after the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), seems to greatly increase governmental power to detain persons suspected of participating in and aiding terrorist activities against the U.S. While terrorism awareness and prevention have obviously been priorities in the government since September 11, 2001, many believe this Act crosses lines that should have never been drawn. The AUMF left many questions unanswered and over the last decade, courts have attempted to answer some of these questions. For instance, they have reached conflicting views on whether AUMF authorizes the detention of U.S. citizens or non-citizens lawfully present within the United States. Most importantly though, the courts have consistently held that the purpose of the AUMF was to authorize the government to use military force on those reasonably believed to be tied to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. A main concern of the NDAA, according to Vladeck, is that it severs the requirement that detention be tied to involvement with the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Many say that the NDAA expands the authority to detain to dangerous measures, disintegrating the boundaries used to protect the liberties of U.S. citizens. The NDAA authorizes, in addition to the AUMF,

"any detention of a person who was a part of or substantially supported Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces."

According to Vladeck, "the NDAA effectively authorizes the military detention of any individual who provides assistance anywhere in the world to any group engaged in hostilities against any of our coalition partners, whether or not the United States is in any way involved in (or even affected by) that particular conflict."

An obvious question is what the government would define as "direct support" of these enemy forces: money, outward praise, logical assistance, full-fledge involvement, etc. This particular language is undoubtedly vague and could include many different actions.

Another question with the language is what groups are included in the term "associated forces" because many may believe human rights activists, political protestors and even the infamous "occupiers" are "associated forces." Would that then permit the government to detain members of these "associated forces?"

Former FBI agent and author of the article in the Huffington Post, Coleen Rowley, expresses concern over another part of the NDAA; one that would be particularly damaging to the application of certain provisions of the Bill of Rights. According to Rowley, the NDAA would authorize the government to "decide who gets an old-fashioned trial (along with a right to an attorney and right against self-incrimination) and who gets detained without due process and put into a modern legal limbo." Some, including Rowley, believe the NDAA allows the government to treat U.S. citizens suspected of aiding terrorist groups as if they were "enemy combatants", and therefore, not to be afforded the same due process rights as other U.S. citizens accused of various crimes.

The biggest fear among the critics of the Act is that the already powerful U.S. Government would be given far more power than was originally intended and drafted into the Constitution. That U.S. citizens could be detained without due process for potential "support" or "aid" of enemy forces goes against the entire purpose of the Constitution.

For the vocal critics against the NDAA and all of those who may be quietly doubting its constitutionality, it seems President Obama has every intention of vetoing the Act once it reaches his desk. While that may provide some comfort, many fear this is only the first step to an eventual decline in the everyday liberties of U.S. citizens.

What's Next for the U.S. Supreme Court?

An interesting article in the New York Times last week focuses on what lies ahead for the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, it focuses on the future of the four left-wing justices individually and as a whole. After a relatively quiet season, these justices may face some tough times over the next few seasons.

The article first discusses the roles of the two newest members of the Court, Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The two female justices have voted the same way in 96% of the cases they have heard. With three female justices on the bench, the question becomes whether we will see more gender discrimination cases. If so, the three justices will need to persuade one of the male right-wing justices to strengthen the standard needed to restrict gender discrimination from its current position at the bottom of the spectrum. This task may prove difficult and will likely require heavy debate.

Next, the article discusses the role of the swing-vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy. The author takes language from some recent opinions written by Kennedy, and speculates as to which way he may vote on some of the upcoming issues. For instance, in Kennedy's opinion for the case involving the release of thousands of inmates from California prisons due to inadequate medical care, he states that the health care system in prisons was "incompatible with the concept of human dignity." This may be a hint on how he might rule on President Obama's Health Care Reform Act. To quote the author of the article, "So if prisoners are entitled to adequate care, you'd think the rest of us would be too."

There is also speculation as to whether Justice Kennedy might one day support same-sex marriage because of his opinion in the 2003 case which threw out the sodomy prosecution of two homosexual males.

The last topic of the article deals with President Obama and his ability to appoint federal appellate judges. Since he took office, Obama has yet to appoint any democratic federal appellate judges. This is odd to some liberals because of Obama's strong stance on constitutional rights. Many thought he would load the federal appellate bench with left-wing liberals. Instead, he has left the federal bench with at least 80 vacancies for more than two years.

It will be interesting to see how the Court will progress with the next season. It is sure to be an interesting one with hot-button topics such as the Health Care Reform Act, same-sex marriage, and abortion rights.

*Photo courtesy of Alex Wong/Getty Images North America.*

John Edwards 'did not break the law,' Greg Craig says. US Attorney ready to Indict.

John Edwards 'did not break the law,' Greg Craig says. The US Attorney in Raleigh appears ready to indict, at issue is campaign money that came from at least two Edwards supporters during his presidential run. 

The allegations stem from criminal campaign finance violations in connection with his affair with Rielle Hunter. Specifically contributions from his national campaign finance chairman, Fred Baron, who died in 2008, and banking heiress Rachel "Bunny" Mellon, who is 100.  The fact that Barron died and that Bunny Mellon is 100 has made the investigation long (two years) and ponderous.

Baron provided hundreds of thousands of dollars and loaned his Aspen, Colo., estate to Hunter for Edwards benefit, allegedly to cover Edwards fathering her child.  Mellon provided about $700,000 in campaign contributions and Edwards referred to her generosity as "Bunny money."

Former White House counsel Greg Craig is representing Edwards and the fact that he is lashing out so hard against prosecutors tells me two things.  First, no deal has been worked out with the government.  Second, a decision on the indictment is near.  After a two year investigation and the sordid details of the affair, and worse yet, the cover up by Edwards including having a staffer (and father of three) claim fatherhood of Hunter's child surely points in the direction of an indictment.  

For more on this developing situation see the Washington Post, Politico, and the Charlotte NewsObserver.