High court to examine voter ID, lethal injections

The two cases are among 17 the U.S. Supreme Court will consider this term.

WASHINGTON POST

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Tuesday added 17 new cases to its workload for this term, including a voter identification case that could have a dramatic impact on the 2008 elections and an examination of whether lethal injections constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

The court agreed to hear a challenge from two Kentucky death row inmates that could serve as the justices’ first consideration since 1878 of whether a method of execution is constitutional. The court held in 1976 that the death penalty was constitutional, and that decision is not at issue in the case.

Kentucky is one of 36 states — only New Jersey uses a different method — that employs a combination of three chemicals to execute an inmate by lethal injection. Experts on criminal sentencing predicted Tuesday’s action would effectively halt executions performed in that manner until the court rules on the issue sometime next year.

The court in earlier decisions had ruled that inmates could challenge lethal injection procedures in federal court, and the petition asking the justices to accept the case said about half of inmates have done so.

The petition said the result has been a range of decisions that require the high court’s scrutiny. “No person should face the risk of excruciating pain and suffering merely because of the state or federal jurisdiction in which the person is condemned ... this court can easily provide guidance and resolve the confusion over the applicable legal standard.”

Voter identification

The voter identification case is from Indiana, where the Legislature passed a law requiring voters to present photo ID before casting ballots. Lawmakers said the law was an effort to combat voter fraud, but opponents saw it as a method to unfairly discourage the poor and minorities from voting.

The Indiana law was enacted in 2005 and upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. But the appeals court decision itself showed the controversy over the intentions of the law.

“Voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes,” conservative Judge Richard Posner wrote for the majority.

But a dissenter, Judge Terence Evans responded: “Let’s not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic.”

Richard Hasen, an elections law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, had urged the court to take the case and in an op-ed in the Washington Post this week, noting the partisan cast to the issue.