|
No. 130589
| In Re Request for Advisory Opinion |
|
Heather S. Meingast |
| Regarding Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71 |
|
Ron D. Robinson |
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Attorney General's Brief in Support of Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71>>
Attorney General's Reply Brief in Support of Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71>>
Attorney General's Brief Opposing Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71>>
Attorney General's Reply Brief Opposing Constitutionality of 2005 PA 71>>
Attorney General's First Supplemental Authority>>
Attorney General's Second Supplemental Authority>>
American Center for Voting Rights Legislative Fund and Kevin Fobbs' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General Emeritus' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Governor Jennifer M. Granholm's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and AARP's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Michigan Department of Civil Rights' Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan County Clerks Laurel J. Breuker, Newaygo County; Mike Bryanton, Ingham County; Cathy M. Garrett, Wayne County; Mary Hollinrake, Kent County; Susan Kaltenbach, Saginaw County; Lawrence Kestenbaum, Washtenaw County; and Daniel C. Krueger, Ottawa County; and Michigan City and Township Clerks, Chris Bedford, City of Rockford; Judy A. Bigney, Algoma Township; Karen Brower, City of East Grand Rapids; Marilynn Crosby, Courtland Township; Linda L. Matz, Oakfield Township; Mary Meines, City of Grandville; Susan L. Morrow, Plainfield Township; Crystal Osterink, Gaines Township; Bonnie L. Shupe, Cannon Township; Chris Swope, City of Lansing; and Jean Wahlfield, Alpine Township's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Democratic Party, Michigan House Democratic Caucus, Michigan Senate Democratic Caucus and Michigan Legislative Black Caucus' Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Department of State's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan House Democratic Caucus' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan House of Representatives' Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan House of Representatives' Amicus Curiae Reply Brief>>
Michigan House of Representatives' Supplemental Reply Brief>>
Michigan Protection & Advocacy Service, Inc.'s Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Republican Party's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People - Detroit Branch, Michigan State
Conference National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Bar Association, American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, League of Women Voters Detroit, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Project Vote, Association of Communities for Reform Now, Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development, Inc., City of Detroit, Detroit Urban League, and National Conference Community and Justice-Michigan's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
Article 3, section 8 of the Michigan Constitution states that “[e]ither house of the legislature or the governor may request the opinion of the supreme court on important questions of law upon solemn occasions as to the constitutionality of legislation after it has been enacted into law but before its effective date.” In House Resolution No. 199, dated February 22, 2006, the Michigan House of Representatives asked the Supreme Court to issue an advisory opinion addressing the constitutionality of Section 523 of 2005 Public Act (PA) 71, which is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2007. Section 523 requires voters to provide an official state identification card, a driver’s license, or “other generally recognized picture identification card” in order to vote. That statute further provides that a voter who does not have one of these forms of identification must “sign an affidavit to that effect” before being allowed to vote. The resolution explains that, in 1996 PA 583, the Michigan Legislature first enacted a requirement that voters identify themselves at polling places by presenting photo identification. But on January 29, 1997, then-Michigan Attorney General Frank J. Kelley issued an opinion finding that 1996 PA 583 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The resolution states that “[s]ince the issuance of this opinion, neither of Michigan’s Secretaries of State, nor any local election official, has enforced the photo identification requirements of MCL § 168.523 . . . .” The resolution also notes that in 2002, Congress enacted the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), 42 USC 15301 et seq., which was designed to “strengthen our elections process.” In 2005 PA 71, the Michigan Legislature reenacted the MCL 168.523 photo identification requirements in response to HAVA. The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the photo identification requirements of Section 523, on their face, violate either the Michigan Constitution or the United States Constitution.
Top of Page
|
