Let People Vote

You should not have a restriction on the right to vote.There is a severe restriction on the right to vote. If its a severe restriction, it has to be narrowly tailored and there has to be a balancing between the burden and the state interest being protected. Restriction can not be discriminatory.

Anderson is the case that set up the balancing. You have to determine the character and magnitude of the burden. So, LPV is going to say that this is a significant burden and it severely restricts the voters, especially those in district 9.

Norman says the restriction has to be narrowly drawn. LPV says that the restrictions established by the MVA are not narrowly drawn to address the state interest of voter fraud. IQ, civic awareness, only available on Saturday don’t address voter fraud.

Burdick says that you can only impose reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.

Tashjian says state has the power to regulate time, place, and manner of election. The restrictions in the MVA goes beyond time, place, and manner of elections.

Lassiter is the literacy test. Literacy and illiteracy are neutral on race, creed, color, and sex.

Crawford- there is a legitimate interest to only count eligible voters.

Texas - Required a photo ID and because the photo ID cost money it was an impermissible burden.

Midlands

In the primary, there were instances of voter fraud and we believe voter fraud is a compelling state interest because illegal voters dilute legitimate voters votes. Two obligations: to ensure legitimate voters votes are counted.,.. We believe it is a reasonable burden. Literacy test is okay and our IQ test equals literacy test. Literacy test is neutral on race, creed, color, and sex. Civic awareness test is not an unfair burden and it is neutral. It is available six days a week and at any DMV. No severe burden so doesn’t have to be narrowly tailored. But listen up court, if it were said that there is a severe burden then it would be narrowly tailored, because it specifically effects the District that has the most voter fraud.

Cases Summaries

Anderson v. Celebrezze:Independent candidate wanted to file to run in the presidential election filed too late in Ohio. Court ruled in favor of AndersonIf severe infringement must be narrowly drawn.

Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut:A Connecticut statute, enacted in 1956, requires voters in any political party primary to be registered members of that party. In 1984, appellee Republican Party of Connecticut (Party) adopted a Party rule that permits independent voters -- registered voters not affiliated with any party -- to vote in Republican primaries for federal and statewide offices. Concern of Secretary of State of Connecticut was party raiding. Court ruled in favor of Republican Party of ConnecticutIf severe infringement must be narrowly drawn

Norman v. ReedIllinois attempted to impose restrictions on the establishment of a“political party”. This Court held, the state may limit the party's access tothe ballot only to the extent that a sufficiently weighty state interest justifies the scope,and any severe restriction must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compellingimportance.

Burdick v. TakushiHawaii had at one time not allowed write-in voting, Burdick wanted it so he fought for it. The supreme court ruled against him saying that the ban on vote-in did not severely restrict his right to vote or freedom of expression.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:In Indiana, a law was created requiring photo-ID to voteFOR MIDLANDS: Justice Stevens:  the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.“Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.”

Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections:Literacy. Neutral on race creed color and sex

Holder:Photo-ID since it cost money it was unfair.CIRCUIT COURT