Let People Vote

You should not have a restriction on the right to vote.There is a severe restriction on the right to
vote. If its a severe restriction, it has to be narrowly tailored and there has to be a balancing
between the burden and the state interest being protected. Restriction can not be discriminatory.

Anderson is the case that set up the balancing. You have to determine the character and
magnitude of the burden. So, LPV is going to say that this is a significant burden and it severely
restricts the voters, especially those in district 9.

Norman says the restriction has to be narrowly drawn. LPV says that the restrictions established
by the MVA are not narrowly drawn to address the state interest of voter fraud. IQ, civic
awareness, only available on Saturday dont address voter fraud.

Burdick says that you can only impose reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions.

Tashjian says state has the power to regulate time, place, and manner of election. The restrictions
in the MVA goes beyond time, place, and manner of elections.

Lassiter is the literacy test. Literacy and illiteracy are neutral on race, creed, color, and sex.

Crawford- there is a legitimate interest to only count eligible voters.

Texas - Required a photo ID and because the photo ID cost money it was an impermissible
burden.

Midlands

In the primary, there were instances of voter fraud and we believe voter fraud is a compelling
state interest because illegal voters dilute legitimate voters votes. Two obligations: to ensure
legitimate voters votes are counted.,.. We believe it is a reasonable burden. Literacy test is okay
and our IQ test equals literacy test. Literacy test is neutral on race, creed, color, and sex. Civic
awareness test is not an unfair burden and it is neutral. It is available six days a week and at any
DMV. No severe burden so doesnt have to be narrowly tailored. But listen up court, if it were
said that there is a severe burden then it would be narrowly tailored, because it specifically
effects the District that has the most voter fraud.












Cases Summaries

Anderson v. Celebrezze:
Independent candidate wanted to file to run in the presidential election filed too late in Ohio.
Court ruled in favor of Anderson
If severe infringement must be narrowly drawn.

Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut:
A Connecticut statute, enacted in 1956, requires voters in any political party primary to be
registered members of that party. In 1984, appellee Republican Party of Connecticut (Party)
adopted a Party rule that permits independent voters -- registered voters not affiliated with any
party -- to vote in Republican primaries for federal and statewide offices. Concern of Secretary
of State of Connecticut was party raiding.
Court ruled in favor of Republican Party of Connecticut
If severe infringement must be narrowly drawn

Norman v. Reed
Illinois attempted to impose restrictions on the establishment of a
political party. This Court held, the state may limit the party's access to
the ballot only to the extent that a sufficiently weighty state interest justifies the scope,
and any severe restriction must be narrowly drawn to advance a state interest of compelling
importance.

Burdick v. Takushi
Hawaii had at one time not allowed write-in voting, Burdick wanted it so he fought for it. The
supreme court ruled against him saying that the ban on vote-in did not severely restrict his right
to vote or freedom of expression.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:
In Indiana, a law was created requiring photo-ID to vote
FOR MIDLANDS: Justice Stevens: the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small
percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.
Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles,
gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial
burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of
voting.

Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections:
Literacy. Neutral on race creed color and sex

Holder:
Photo-ID since it cost money it was unfair.
CIRCUIT COURT