High Court Delays Clinic Protection Vote

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will put off for months a ruling on whether federal judges have the power to protect abortion clinics from disruptive protests by Operation Rescue activists.

That issue had arisen most notably last summer in Wichita, Kan., when a federal judge called in U.S. marshals to prevent anti-abortion activists from shutting down abortion clinics there, citing a post-Civil War law.

The Bush Administration, siding with the abortion protesters, disputed whether the widely used federal law--derived from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871--gives federal judges any authority to protect the clinics or to halt the sometimes violent protests.

That measure gives federal judges the power to intercede when “two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation or threat” other persons from exercising their constitutional rights.

While the law once protected blacks in the Old South, it has been used in recent years to block aggressive attempts to close abortion clinics. Operation Rescue activists have also been fined and jailed under it.

On Oct. 16, a few weeks before Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the high court, the justices heard arguments on the issue in the current case (Bray vs. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 90-985). If the eight justices had then split 4 to 4, the court could have reheard the arguments earlier this year and let Thomas cast the deciding vote.

The court offered no explanation Monday for its non-decision. The justices’ action suggests, however, that at least one member of the court changed his mind on the issue during the spring, thereby creating a 4-4 tie.

The announcement was terse. The case “is restored to the calendar for reargument,” it said. Since the next arguments will be heard in October, a ruling is now likely to be delayed until early next year. Thomas probably will hold the key vote.

Women’s rights groups, which had waited anxiously for the ruling, quickly labeled the move as political.

“It’s a political action by a political court,” said Executive Vice President Kim Gandy of the National Organization for Women. “The delay was clearly intended to postpone . . . a possible political firestorm for George Bush until after the election.”

Meanwhile, the high court on a 6-3 vote gave states Monday the power to ban write-in candidates for office, a ruling that will likely hurt some protest candidates but apparently not Texas billionaire Ross Perot’s presidential bid.

Only four states--Hawaii, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Nevada--have laws forbidding write-in votes. Perot’s campaign, however, says that it expects him to qualify for the ballot in those jurisdictions.

“I think this will prove to be academic because Perot will get on the ballot in all 50 states,” said James Linger of Tulsa, Okla., an election law expert who has defended several fringe candidates seeking the right to have their votes counted.