Voters and This Supreme Court

There are three cases before the Supreme Court this session of special interest to the nation's voters.

The first, argued today, casts voters against the parties in terms of primary elections. At issue is a Washington State 2004 ballot measure, Initiative 872, which advances the top two candidates on the primary ballot, regardless of their party affiliation. It passed with 60 percent voter support, not surprising since Washington had operated with a blanket primary for most of the 20th century.

The question: is this an undue First and Fourteenth Amendment burden for the parties? Joining the Republicans: the Democratic and Libertarian parties. Case: Washington State Grange v. the Washington State Republican Party (06-713, pdf) and Washington State v. Washington State Republican Party (06-730, pdf)

The second, slated for Wednesday, is of interest in states where citizens elect judges. The question: Do political parties in New York have so much power in selecting lower-level judges candidates that the system violates the First Amendment rights of voters and candidates? Case: N.Y. Board of Elections v. Torres (06-766, pdf)

The third concerns identification at the polls and if requiring a government-photo-required ID violates citizen rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court will consider a 2005 Indiana law that requires voters to show photo identification. Case: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21), Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25)

Other Cases With Political Impacts
A long-standing battle between Congress and the First Amendment continues in United States v. Williams (06-694, pdf). At issue: Congressional attempts to legislate child pornography via the PROTECT Act of 2003.

In the Board of Education of the City of New York v. Tom F. (06-637, pdf), the Court will decide "when school districts must pay for a private education for a child with learning disabilities, under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The school board argues it should be allowed to provide a specialized education for the child before being forced to pay for private schools."

Finally, how much authority does the President have to require state courts to honor international treaties signed by the United States? After the World Court ruled that a group of Mexican nationals convicted in Texas courts had been denied the right to meet with the Mexican consulate, President Bush ordered the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to review the cases. Case: Medellin v. Texas (06-984, pdf)

Also, see Key Civil Liberties Cases of the Supreme Court's 2007-2008 Term.