http://archive2.mrc.org/taxonomy/term/6176/all en http://archive2.mrc.org/articles/ouch-greenhouse-winces-splintered-court-decisions <div class="field field-type-text field-field-subtitle"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> A voter ID law in Indiana that Linda Greenhouse found &quot;objectionable&quot; was upheld by the Supreme Court 6-3, in what she called a &quot;splintered&quot; decision. But what about close rulings she approves of? </div> </div> </div> <div class="field field-type-nodereference field-field-source"> <div class="field-items"> <div class="field-item odd"> <div class="field-label-inline-first"> By</div> <a href="/author/clay-waters">Clay Waters</a> </div> </div> </div> <p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">Tuesday's paper led with the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/29scotus.html?scp="2&sq=linda+greenhouse&st=nyt" " target="_self">Supreme Court ruling</a>, by a vote of 6-3, to uphold anIndiana law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls. Huffy Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse called it a "splintered decision." <img src= "http://mrc.org/Timeswatch/stillshots/2006/LindaGreenhouse6.jpg" align="right" width="129" height="150" /></p><br /> <p style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"></p><p><a href="http://archive2.mrc.org/articles/ouch-greenhouse-winces-splintered-court-decisions" target="_blank">read more</a></p> Articles TimesWatch Indiana LabelingBias LindaGreenhouse NewYorkTimes NYTimes Splintered SupremeCourt TimesWatch TimesWatch.org VoterIdentification Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:31:00 +0000 admin 6139 at http://archive2.mrc.org