Of course, recent judicial interventions overturning state laws requiring forms of photo identification to vote, done largely at the hands of appointees of White House Democrats and who tend to liberal jurisprudence, represent a political strategy. By hoping to push these cases into the Supreme Court next year, now equally balanced between justices who make decisions on the bases of activism and of constructionism, in counting upon a leftist jurist to replace the vacancy of the late Assoc. Justice Antonin Scalia they hope to find a way to create a court to invalidate such requirements. The left believes by degrading elections integrity it will gain an electoral advantage as non-citizens and less-informed citizens who would be less likely to make the effort to acquire photo identification typically are more manipulable and more prone to identifying as Democrats.
Scalia, probably the most brilliant member of the Court over the past several decades, probably would have applauded the dissent in the highest profile of these cases, Veasey V. Abbott heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which pointed out the majority’s politicized assumption that strict identification laws automatically connoted discriminatory intent. The problem is activist judges routinely commit such errors in pursuit of a political agenda, and his replacement if of that sentiment likely would send the entire Court in that direction on this and many other issues.