Voter ID Law Goes to Court

Virginia's voter ID law challenged in federal trial

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-virginia-votingrights-idUSKCN0VV169

2/22/16

A piece of legislation in Virginia goes on trial today over it's legality. The law, which requires that voters bring photo ID when casting their ballots, is deemed by democrats to be discriminatory, and illegal. They believe that this law is an attempt of a failing republican party to disenfranchise voters that would vote against them. The law has been shown to affect poor, minority, and young voters, as they are more unlikely to have photo identification. These demographics are key demographics in the democratic party, as they are more likely to oppose conservatism and support liberalism. State election records show that about 197,000 registered voters do not have any form of acceptable photo ID, and only 4,117 free voter identification cards have been acquired since the records were collected.


In modern American history, the higher courts have begun to favor larger rights of voters and greater inclusion in the democratic process. The 15th Amendment, the 19th Amendment, and the 24th Amendment have all been made to protect the rights of people who have had their voting rights curtailed by their respective state governments. These laws are made, supposedly, to stop the crime of voter fraud, a crime that has only had 5 recorded cases in recent memory. While making legislation to uphold the law is admirable, the manner that this is being enacted is fundamentally wrong. This law, and laws like it, do not affect citizens equally, and undermine the power of certain populations in our elections. Our democracy should strive to enable as many voters as possible, not try and limit certain people's access to the polls.

Kim Davis Cleared of Additional Legal Reprocussions

2/10/16

Judge clears Kentucky clerk, OKs marriage licenses with her name removed

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kentucky-gaymarriage-idUSKCN0VJ1Q1

In what appears to be the final development in the Kim Davis marriage licence case, a federal judge cleared Kim Davis, an ideologue of conservatism, of any remaining contempt charges, and has enforced the court's decision to uphold marriage equality. The compromise that was reached through the order of Governor Matt Blevin was that the names of county clerks be removed from all new marriage licences to honor the religious beliefs of the clerks, but the newly enforced right of homosexual couples to marry be honored. Since returning to work Kim Davis has not hindered the process of new marriage licences going though, but has distanced herself from the process. When the Governor's order went through, the ACLU sued Davis on behalf of various same-sex couples, saying she was not in compliance with written law stating she had to fill out her name on all marriage licences. The federal judge stated that it was perfectly fine to not fill in her name or information and upheld the governors order.

This story relates to a perfect example of selective incorporation, a power given to the supreme court through an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that became popular in the 1920's. The Supreme Court's decision to protect the right of same-sex couple to marry became the law of the land when their final decision was made. They selectively incorporated this right through their interpretation of the constitution. The supremacy of the national government ensures that any any conflict with state or local law about marriage equality is ruled in the favor of the national government. While it is Kim Davis's right to hold her own personal and religious beliefs about the matter, it was ultimately illegal to deny other people a right guaranteed to them by the federal government.