Seriously, though, a ten-year-old picture isn't a terribly good ID photo even for normal people.
Posted on 10/19/2005 9:20:31 AM PDT by Pikamax
ATLANTA - Comparing Georgia's new voting law to a poll tax, a federal judge has blocked the state from requiring voters to show photo identification to participate in elections.
In a 123-page ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy in Rome said the law is an undue burden on voting rights and is not tailored narrowly enough to serve its stated purpose of preventing voter fraud.
Requiring voters "to purchase a photo ID card effectively places a cost on the right to vote," he said, adding that it is the equivalent of a poll tax and is unconstitutional.
The law "is most likely to prevent Georgia's elderly, poor and African-American voters from voting. For those citizens, the character and magnitude of their injury - the loss of their right to vote - is undeniably demoralizing and extreme," the judge wrote.
The preliminary injunction prevents the law from being enforced until a lawsuit filed by voter and civil rights groups challenging the measure is fully heard by the court. As a result, municipal and bond elections set throughout the state for Nov. 8 most likely will be held without photo IDs required at the polls.
Supporters of the law vowed to challenge the ruling, with House Speaker Glenn Richardson, R-Hiram, blasting "a Jimmy Carter-appointed judge" for "thwarting the best interests of the people of this state."
The decision to appeal rests with Attorney General Thurbert Baker. A spokesman said the ruling was under review.
So far, the voter ID requirement has only applied to several local special elections.
The Republican-backed measure heightened racial tensions during the legislative session.
Most of Georgia's black lawmakers walked out of the Capitol when it passed in March, some loudly singing a civil rights-era protest song. The widow of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta Scott King, called on the governor to veto the bill.
Democrats argued the measure was a political move by the GOP to depress voting among minorities, the elderly and the poor - all traditional bases for Democrats. Its opponents include the AARP, League of Women Voters, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
The U.S. Justice Department approved the law in August, saying that while Attorney General Alberto Gonzales didn't object to the state's voter ID requirement, the federal agency's approval didn't preclude lawsuits against it.
The law eliminates formerly accepted forms of voter identification, such as Social Security cards, birth certificates or utility bills.
Gov. Sonny Perdue and other Republicans who pushed for the law say the aim is to prevent voter fraud, not to make it more difficult to vote. The governor said state IDs would be given free to people who couldn't afford the fee. "It will not be a hardship on any voter," Perdue said when he signed the measure in April.
Murphy didn't buy that argument in his order Tuesday, holding that the state isn't taking sufficient steps to make photo IDs available to those who can't afford them. The cost is $20 for a five-year state photo ID card or $35 for a 10-year ID.
Perdue called Tuesday's ruling a preliminary step in a long process. He said state lawmakers, the Department of Justice "and the vast majority of Georgia citizens agree that requiring photographic identification to vote is an appropriate and common sense approach to ensure voter integrity and sound elections in our state."
Sen. Cecil Staton, R-Macon, the bill's sponsor, said he was "obviously disappointed" but added, "I am confident that when further testimony and evidence is heard, the photo ID bill will be ultimately upheld."
Civil rights leaders like the Rev. Joseph Lowery hailed the ruling as "a breath of fresh air." He added, "We believe that this affirms our notion that this legislation infringes on our constitutional rights."
Nineteen states require voters to show identification, but only five request photo ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Those states - Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and South Dakota - allow voters without a photo ID to use other forms of identification or sign an affidavit of identity.
What he really means is that VOTER FRAUD IS FREE
Easy. Just change the law to make IDs free for the indigent.
They already are. The judge is just making stuff up to justify the pro-fraud ruling.
Time to start impeaching judges.
(Denny Crane: "Gun Control? For Communists. She's A Liberal. Can't Hunt.")
This one line and the title is all you need to know about the whole story.
"The cost is $20 for a five-year state photo ID card or $35 for a 10-year ID."
Why is there a time limit? Do you morph into someone else every few years?
Revenue, m'friend, revenue.
Born 1927 in Haralson County, GA
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia
Nominated by Jimmy Carter on July 7, 1977,
to a seat vacated by James C. Hill; Confirmed by the Senate on July 28, 1977, and received commission on July 29, 1977.
Education: University of Georgia School of Law, LL.B., 1949
Professional Career:
U.S. Navy, 1945-1946
Private practice, Buchanan, Georgia, 1949-1958
Private practice, Buchanan and Tallapoosa, Georgia, 1958-1971
Georgia state representative, 1951-1961
Assistant state solicitor general, Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit, Georgia, 1956
Superior court judge, Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit, Georgia, 1971-1977
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
Another of peanut Jimmy's legacy.
In my last license I had black hair, now it's grey. I got turned down for a beer at The Boston Garden because I looked older than the guy in the picture.
"They already are. The judge is just making stuff up to justify the pro-fraud ruling."
I also read somewhere on FR that they will also deliver them to those who don't have the means to pick up their free cards. Judge's ruling = BS.
Expensive? Maybe.But worth it!
The one slim thread of merit to the judge's rationale is that poll taxes are prohibited across the board, without regard to them being low and/or means-tested.
The state might have to abolish the fee for getting a license or photo ID card for everyone, not just the indigent, in order to close this loophole. (Administrative restrictions on quantity in order to prevent clows from demanding whole stacks of them should pass consitutional muster -- you only need one copy to vote, after all.)
Oh boy, that comes to less than ONE PENNY per day! How will they eat after incurring such expense??
I keep wondering what's the matter with the blue-inked finger idea...at least you can't vote twice.
One would think a judge would not be so STUPID as to be unaware that the state ID is free to those who can't afford it, and the state will even come to you if you can't make it to them. One would hope a judge would realize this is only to prevent voter fraud by not permitting voting under every alias name or votes from the cemetary. One might even think a judge would be above partisan BS, but no, this is Georgia, and any group stupid enough to elect Cynthia McKinny to office could only do it by fraudulent means. If disenfranchised means one vote per person, then let's disenfranchise everybody.
Seriously, though, a ten-year-old picture isn't a terribly good ID photo even for normal people.
You do know that the vast majority or voters don't have the means or desire to become the freak michael jackdon did.
I don't look like I did in 1968, or 1978, or 1988, or even 1998.
Having said that, it's not a comment on the price of the ID. A drivers licence photo or equivilent should be fine, they expire too.
This judge was appointed by jimmy carter, see reply #10.
Exactly.
A picture ID cannot cost more than 2-3 dollar to produce - I support this expenditure of tax dollars far more than most of the other things they waste my money on.
Let's see. I have to present a valid Photo ID ( Driver's License or State or Military Issued ID card) most anytime I wish to use a check for purchase. I also must show my ID along with my proof of insurance when I visit some doctors.
I have to show ID when getting cash back from my bank account. All of this is required to prevent fraud. Mind I you if they insist on copying it ( some doctor's offices do) I demand they cross off my DLN so just Name and photo are on record.
I wonder, do those who balk at showing an ID to vote, never write checks, never go to doctors and never get cash from their bank account? I guess not. Remember voter fraud is a time honored Democratzies tradition. Who brought us motor voter laws, who made it easier for non legal residents to get voter registration cards? The DEMS of course.
You can bet your bottom dollar the majority of those objecting already have a form of photo ID. Not to be too cynical but don't you need one to apply for any kind of government aid? So the purpose in striking the ID requirement is not to protest some kind of imaginary poll tax but to allow voter fraud to continue
They already are. The judge is just making stuff up to justify the pro-fraud ruling.
Exactly. This ruling is insanity and is designed to perpetuate vote fraud.
let them use their welfare id...
Not only should a photo ID be required, people should also have to dip their index finger into purple dye, like they do in foreign countries, like Iraq. Helps to cut down on repeat multiple voting.
You can do that in Oklahoma as well. It is a loophole that makes it easy to get a fake id for someone. Provided they look like you of course. Or that you go to rather lenient bars.
"Requiring voters "to purchase a photo ID card effectively places a cost on the right to vote," he said, adding that it is the equivalent of a poll tax and is unconstitutional. "
How about paying for gun permits??
Should we buy printing presses for people who want to exercize the right to a free press and can't afford their own?
Unfortunately there is no grounds for impeachment on the basis of lack of common sense - not that the gutless wonders we send to political office would exercize that law anymore than the one against treason.
Requiring voters "to purchase a photo ID card effectively places a cost on the right to vote,"
So does showing up at the poll. That will be the next target.
If I am not mistaken there is a provision for provisional ballots AND ways to obtain photo ID for FREE.
This is why we must rip the courts out of their hands. This is nothing more then a lame attempt to support voter fraud.
I wish a Judge would block me having to pay a fee, get fingerprinted and FBI brackground check in order to keep and bear arms.
Judge Murphy is an outstanding judge, and almost universally regarded as such by the bar. In 20 years I've never heard a single lawyer complain about him - it's usually just the opposite when his name comes up. The bashing of this judge that is going on in this thread and elsewhere is just completely bogus.
All I know about him is from this ruling, which I think is wrong in that under the law passed people could get ID cards for free and would reduce voter fraud.
Judges these days get known for their rulings, like Rehnquist was always known for being one of the two votes against Roe.
Here's the deal on the poll tax argument: Exercise of the franchise was conditioned upon payment of a fee or signing an affidavit of indigency. The fee is, I think, $20.
The 24th Amendment states:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Well then he would also have to negate the use of at least birth certificates since most jurisdictions charge for a copy of it.
If birth certificates are ok, how come this voter card is not?
photo ID is the issue.
seems the solution is to make the free voter card carry a photo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.