Supreme Court live-blog.

Here. Possible excitement today.

UPDATE 1: An opinion in Salinas v. Texas — PDF — which is about the right not to incriminate oneself ("prosecutors can comment on the silence of an accused who has not yet been arrested").

UPDATE 2: Alleyene: Justice Thomas writes the opinion holding that "Any fact that increases the mandatory minimum is an 'element' that must be submitted to the jury." Joining him are Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. A 5-4 decision with Thomas and the liberals. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito dissent. PDF.

UPDATE 3: A Kennedy opinion, but not the long-awaited Fisher (the affirmative action case). This is Maracich v. Spears, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act case. Another 5-4 decision. "An attorney's solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the DPPA's litigation exception." PDF.

UPDATE 4: Scalia writes for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council: "Arizona's proof of citizenship requirement is preempted by the federal law requiring that states use the federal voter registration form." Only 2 dissenters: Thomas and Alito. PDF.

UPDATE 5: And that's it for today. There will be more opinions on Thursday.

Which of the opinions are you most interested in hearing me say something about?
	Salinas v. Texas
	Alleyene
	Maracich v. Spears
	Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council
pollcode.com free polls

Wisconsin appellate court upholds voter ID law, reversing the decision of a Dane County judge.

"We express no opinion as to whether such an argument might have merit if supported by fact finding regarding the burdens imposed," Judge Brian Blanchard wrote. "However, in this facial challenge in which the League does not rely on any fact finding or evidentiary material, the implied argument falls short."

The court also ruled that plaintiffs had not shown that the requirement presents an "additional qualification" for voting -- which they had argued violated Article III of the state's constitution -- and that the Legislature had not exceeded its authority by passing the law, saying it has "implicit but broad constitutional authority to establish a voting registration system."

ADDED: Here's what I said about the state constitutional law argument at the time of the trial level decision (boldface added):

[This argument] is nothing like the arguments against voter ID laws based on the U.S. Constitution that you may be familiar with. It's about the "Suffrage" section of the state constitution that declares a big group of residents to be qualified electors, then gives the legislature the power to pare away from that group (in 2 specific categories, convicted felons and incompetent persons). To agree with the judge, I think you need to see a person without an ID as a type of person who is being excluded from the right to vote (and not within one of those 2 categories, so not within the legislature's power to exclude)....

I don't think a person without an ID is being disqualified from voting the way, say, convicted felons are disqualified.

There's just a step in the process that hasn't been completed. To say not presenting an ID is excluding you from the category of people permitted to vote seems like saying people who don't go to the polls when the polls are open are being excluded. It would be strange to say closing the polls at 8 is creating a new category of disqualified voters — those people who do not arrive before 8.

AND: From today's opinion (boldface added):

We are not persuaded that the photo identification requirement here is, on its face, more like a categorical bar to certain classes of potential voters, held to be a “qualification” under Knowlton, than it is like a number of voting procedures, including registration requirements, which indisputably would pass muster under Knowlton or any other authority the League cites.

The League argues that Knowlton stands for a test “that looks to the law’s effect of disqualifying a qualified elector.”  However, under the League’s proposed test, at least as stated, virtually any requirement placed on voters would be an unconstitutional and impermissible additional “qualification,” again contrary to the League’s concessions stated elsewhere in its briefing.  For example, under the League’s proposed test the requirement that voters must be in line at the polling place by 8:00 p.m. on election day would be unconstitutional because it has the effect of “disqualifying,” in the League’s terms, any person, no matter how qualified and registered to vote, who arrives at 8:01 p.m.  See Wis. Stat. § 6.78 (regulating poll hours).  As the state officials argue, any such argument was foreclosed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court long ago under the authority cited above.  For these same reasons, we disagree that the circuit court in this case correctly articulated any constitutional rule that supports its conclusion, on this record, that the photo identification requirement is a “qualification” that “masquerade[s]” as “an election regulation requirement.” 

"It's the right of all Afghans to have their ethnicity listed on the card."

"Ethnicity is mentioned in the constitution and in the national anthem, so it should be on the card too."

The controversy isn't over whether the government will put each person's ethnic identity on the official ID card. It's over the new cards that will have the information only within an electronic chip.

"In Afghanistan, everything is divided according to population size of the ethnicities," [says one student.] "The military, government jobs, spots in universities — if we are shown as less, then we get less."

He argues it's critical to list ethnicity so that the government and society know the exact percentage of each group. He and many others argue the percentage of Pashtuns is overstated, and as a result, they get a larger share of power and jobs.

"It's a competition," says Mohsen. "We want to have more power over other ethnicities."

"Let me get this straight: The police department’s job is now dictating when I should have a party, and that’s OK?"

"This is what gets at the heart of the issue. It isn’t 'Mifflin concerns us,' it’s 'you guys shouldn’t party that weekend," writes University of Wisconsin student John Waters, denouncing the Madison Police Department's "condescending letter." ("Mifflin" is an annual Madison block party that dates back to 1969.)

For students only, and on this weekend only, the city thinks it is OK to turn downtown into a police state, where they will seek and destroy any attempt at having unsanctioned fun. Ridiculous.

Next: “If you look under 21 and have alcohol, you will be asked to provide proof of age.” It’s official, the Constitution is being thrown out that weekend. I’m 23, but people say I have a baby face, so go ahead, demand my ID — the Fourth Amendment is really more of a guideline anyway. Ridiculous.

The super-liberal Madison authorities go in for this show-your-papers business to thwart the freedom of individuals to associate with each other over music and beer, but let the GOP at the state level require IDs for voting and they'll say we've descended into a police state. I can just hear these "progressives" righteously lecturing about how requiring IDs for voting is really underhandedly a way to discriminate. But the police department's policy is openly discriminatory against the young (and — if you want to talk about what's really going on — I'd suggest that that it's underhandedly discriminatory against males).

I defend Mifflin more than any event we have, not out of some misplaced adolescent desire to get hammered, but because it represents everything about this school that makes me proud to wake up a Badger. Yes, our academics are awesome, but it is the social life here that sets UW apart for me. Mifflin happens to be the pinnacle of that life, and is, as it has always been, meant to be a celebration of everything it means to be a Badger.

Simply put, it’s just fun to get up early and party with your whole school after a winter of cold and two semesters of hard work at a top-notch university. To the powers that drove us to this point, I would ask that you pay attention to the entire reputation of this school, not just your idea of what that reputation should be.

"Milwaukee County prosecutors Thursday filed voter fraud charges against 10 people..."

"... including two accused of double voting in 2012 elections and two felons ineligible to vote."

Also among the fraud cases: a Milwaukee woman who is accused of signing a recall petition against Republican Gov. Scott Walker three times; and the petition circulator who collected those signatures.

"Anyone entering the Supreme Court’s chamber Monday morning expecting constitutional drama over the right to vote had to come away quite disappointed."

"It took all of fifty minutes of a one-hour argument to get to any constitutional issue, most of the Justices wanted to focus on what 'may only' means in a federal law...."

Since Congress only specified that states “may require only” some information, and gave them explicit permission to find ways to verify eligibility, Arizona has argued that the two mandates can exist side by side....

Alito... sought to drive home a worry about states’ ability to ensure voter eligibility by outlining a hypothetical.  A boy, the Justice suggested, who looks to be thirteen years old rides up to a registration office on his bicycle, wearing a T-shirt from a middle school, and seeks to register.  Alito then asked:  “Can the state require him to show some proof of age?"