Replies

I will never cease to be amazed at how little people know about our system of government.

I’ll try to explain this in simple terms.

We have a system of dual sovereigns. State and Federal. This is why you can be charged under both State law and federal law for the same conduct without it violating the double jeopardy clause.

The federal constitution is supreme. If a State law or Constitutional provision violates the federal constitution then the law will be struck down.

However, on issues that solely implicate STATE law or the STATE constitution and for which there is no federal issue, then the Supreme Court cannot hear or rule on the case.

It’s easiest to give an example with search and seizure cases. The 4th Amendment sets the floor. If a State tried to pass a law that said police could search your house at any point without a warrant, that would implicate the federal Constitution and SCOTUS could rule on that.

However, If a State wanted to be more restrictive under the State Constitution than the Fourth Amendment requires, SCOTUS is powerless to intervene.

A good example of this is the vehicle exception to the warrant requirement. Under the 4th Amendment, if an officer has probable cause that a vehicle contains contraband, the officer can search the vehicle without a warrant, so long as it is not on the curtilage of private property. That’s the floor.

However, New York has interpreted its State Constitution as requiring a warrant for vehicle searches. Since the New York interpretation rests on adequate and independent State grounds, SCOTUS can’t intervene and overrule it.

The same applies to this issue here. SCOTUS has ruled on voter ID laws in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008). In other words, laws like Indiana’s don’t violate the Federal Constitution. However, that doesn’t mean that voter ID is now required nationwide. State law still controls here. If a State Supreme Court interprets its own STATE Constitution as barring voter ID in that State, SCOTUS can’t overturn that decision if it rests on adequate and independent State grounds.

I quoted, verbatim from several Supreme Court cases that have already decided this issue.

Stuff like this is WHY internet keyboard lawyers shouldn’t be trusted and why there are places called law schools and a thing called a bar exam.