Part One 906 words
The Logic of Cruelty
The Case that Keeps "Illegal" Drivers Uninsured
Analysis of Sanchez & Doe vs. State of Iowa, Iowa Department of Public Safety, and Iowa Department of Transportation, Iowa Supreme Court, No. 14 / 04-0176 Filed February 18, 2005
By Dave Leach(Dave Leach is listed in Marquis' "Who's Who in Communications". Write to him at Leach@Saltshaker.US)
Translation into Spanish by Gabriela G. Buenrostro,former newspaper and magazine journalist and writer, and former host Zero Radio Show in Mexico City. (Write to her at Gabriela@Saltshaker.US)

The facts are simple. 
There are at least 24,000 undocumented immigrants in Iowa (the estimate 5 years ago), the Court agreed. 
They "have become integrated into many Iowa communities", the Court acknowledged. 
They have been prevented from getting auto insurance since 2003, when the Iowa legislature became one of about 39 states to deny them driver's licenses, by requiring drivers to present a social security card in order to get a license. 
That means they no longer take driving tests, and can't get auto insurance. (Well actually there are still agents who will insure them, but for rates as overwhelming as the waiting time for a USCIS review.)
Some Iowans don't think forcing "illegals" to drive uninsured, and without taking a driving test, is smart. They think the more drivers who are licensed and insured, the safer our roads will be. On behalf of such Iowans, as well as on behalf of undocumented immigrants, attorney Curt Daniels, of Chariton, sued to reverse the 2003 law. (Iowa Code 321.182(1)(a) (It is not known how many had insurance when they could get it, but getting stopped without an insurance card can lead to a ticket across the border.)
The Iowa Supreme Court ruled, February 18, that the law stays put.
Hang on to your sombreros, because you are about to take a tour through the twists and turns of the reasoning of a Supreme Court Judge, an adventure to be compared with the newest and wildest ride rumored under construction at Disney World: "The Border Crossing!" (Well, if it's not a rumor yet, we'll put it on the internet and start one.)

Why the Court Doesn't Worry about Road Safety
The Court said no one has convinced the Court that not having insurance, or taking a driving test, will hurt anyone! That's right, that's what they said! They said, "ya know, boys, in order to sue, ya gotta be hurt. Ya cin't just sue 'cause yer afeard ya might git hurt. Now lookit all these citizins who think they're safer if we let illegals git insurance and take them silly tests. Do you see any of 'em actually hurt yet? That's just someone's guess, that insurance, or knowing how ta drive, does any good. We gotta have PROOF!"
Well, that wasn't their exact words. But that was their exact meaning. 
The ruling says you have to wait for someone to actually get hurt you before you can sue them, and then after stating that basic fact which most people already know without having to be told, it goes on to another subject! That's its whole "explanation"! The concerned Iowans, who are suing, have not been hurt, so they have no "standing", or right to sue! As if it is obvious to everybody that it hasn't hurt anybody to keep perhaps 10,000 Iowa drivers from taking driving tests and getting auto insurance! Here is how they said it:
[Why Iowans concerned that illegals are kept from getting insurance have no right (or "standing") to sue in court:) "'Standing to sue' has been defined to mean that a party must have 'sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy to obtain judicial resolution of that controversy.'"  Our cases have determined that a complaining party must (1) have a specific personal or legal interest in the litigation and (2) be injuriously affected.  In the Hawkeye Bancorporation case, we emphasized that having a legal interest in the litigation and being injuriously affected are separate requirements for standing, both of which must be satisfied.  ....("First, the plaintiff must have suffered an 'injury in fact'-an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) 'actual or imminent, not "conjectural" or "hypothetical."'  Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of-the injury has to be 'fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and not the result of the independent action of some third party not before the court.'  Third, it must be 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that the injury will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.'" (And then on to another subject.)
I had kind of thought that, what with the recent laws making it an offense to drive without a proof of insurance card in your car with you, and the horrible fines for driving without insurance, that the law was kind of leaning towards thinking insurance was kind of important. 
I figured that the fact 10,000 drivers, who previously could get insurance and who have more incentive than citizens to get it, have not been able to get it for over a year, should be proof enough for a judge that damage has been done, without having to produce actual corpses. But what do I know? I only wear a robe to the bathroom.
Next week: Part Two, "Why the Court Doesn't Worry About the Iowa Constitution."