Court denies voter-ID challenge

Wisconsin law stands; justices hear Confederate flag case

Wisconsin's chief elections official Kevin Kennedy discusses the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear a challenge to the state's voter identification law on Monday, March 23, 2015, in Madison, Wis. Kennedy says it's too close to the April 7 election for voter ID to be put in place, but it will be required after that. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer)
Wisconsin's chief elections official Kevin Kennedy discusses the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear a challenge to the state's voter identification law on Monday, March 23, 2015, in Madison, Wis. Kennedy says it's too close to the April 7 election for voter ID to be put in place, but it will be required after that. (AP Photo/Scott Bauer)

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to a Wisconsin law that requires prospective voters to provide photo identification before casting their ballots, meaning Wisconsin voters will have to comply with the law unless another court steps in.

The move was a surprise, as the court last year temporarily blocked the law for the November election.

The American Civil Liberties Union responded to Monday's development by filing an emergency application in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, urging that court to stop the law from immediately taking effect. The group said a stay was needed to prevent a sudden change while voting was underway in an April 7 general election. Voters will elect judges, one mayor and other local officials.

"Although the Supreme Court has declined to take this case, it previously made clear that states may not impose new requirements for voting in the weeks before Election Day," Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, said in a statement. "The situation is even more compelling here because absentee ballots have already been mailed out for the April election, and early in-person voting has begun.

"Imposing a new restriction in the midst of an election will disenfranchise voters who have already cast their ballots," he said. "It is a recipe for disaster."

The Wisconsin law, one of the strictest in the nation, was enacted in 2011 but had been mostly blocked by various courts. A federal trial judge, for instance, said that it would "deter or prevent a substantial number of the 300,000-plus registered voters who lack ID from voting" and that it would disproportionately affect black and Hispanic voters.

Civil-rights groups had hoped the Supreme Court would use the case, Frank v. Walker, 14-803, to reconsider its 2008 decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, which upheld Indiana's voter-identification law.

But a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit allowed the law to go into effect, reasoning that it was similar to one from Indiana. The full 7th Circuit deadlocked 5-5 on a request to rehear the case, drawing a sharp dissent from Judge Richard Posner, who had written the 2007 appeals court opinion upholding the Indiana law that was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Texas license plates

Also Monday, the Supreme Court heard arguments on a dispute over a proposed Confederate battle flag license plate in Texas.

Specialty license plates are big business in Texas. They brought in $17.6 million last year, and state officials said there are now nearly 450 messages to choose from -- from "Choose Life" to the Boy Scouts and hamburger chains.

The state rarely rejects a specialty plate, but it did turn down a request by the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans for a license plate with its logo bearing the battle flag. The group's lawsuit led to Monday's hearing. Nine other states allow drivers to display plates with the flag.

The justices seemed uncomfortable with arguments advanced by both sides -- the state in defense of its actions, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans in their appeal for the symbol.

If the court finds the state must permit the battle flag on license plates, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked in a series of questions, would it be forced also to allow plates with a swastika, the word "jihad" and a call to make marijuana legal?

Lawyer R. James George Jr., a law clerk to former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall 45 years ago, responded "yes" each time on behalf of the veterans group.

He told the justices that "speech that we hate is something that we should be proud of protecting."

Skeptical about the state's argument, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said the sheer number of messages and their wide range show that the state's only interest is financial.

A decision in Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans, 14-144, is expected by late June.

Disabilities law

In another dispute, this one over the nation's disabilities law, the Supreme Court showed skepticism that law requires police to take special precautions when arresting armed and violent suspects who are mentally ill.

The case concerns how San Francisco police in 2008 dealt with a woman with schizophrenia who had threatened to kill her social worker. Police ultimately forced their way into Teresa Sheehan's room at a group home, then shot her after she came at them with a knife.

Sheehan survived and later sued the city, claiming police had a duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act to consider her mental illness and take more steps to avoid a violent confrontation.

San Francisco agrees that the act requires public officials to make "reasonable accommodations" to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities, but Deputy City Attorney Christine Van Aken told the justices that it doesn't apply "if the individual presents a significant threat."

Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to take the city's side, but he wondered whether the court should have taken up the case in the first place.

Sheehan's lawyer, Leonard Feldman, said he would welcome it if the court simply dismissed the case and sent it back to the lower courts.

Execution appeal

Finally, the high court turned away an appeal from Lester Bower of Arlington, Texas, a convicted killer who has spent more than 30 years on death row.

Bower's scheduled execution last month for the fatal shootings of four people at an airplane hangar on a North Texas ranch in 1983 had been stopped by Scalia pending the outcome of the appeal.

With the appeal's rejection, it remained unclear how soon Bower may face the death chamber.

Bower's appeal had raised several issues, including his claim that other people were responsible for the deaths. He also contends that executing him now after he has been held for so long on death row would be unconstitutionally cruel.

Bower, who long has maintained his innocence in the October 1983 shootings, is among the longest-serving Texas death row inmates because his case has moved slowly through the state and federal courts.

Information for this article was contributed by Adam Liptak of The New York Times and by Mark Sherman, Sam Hananel and staff members of The Associated Press.

A Section on 03/24/2015

Upcoming Events