Posted on 04/28/2008 3:55:37 PM PDT by SmithL
The Supreme Court's refusal to strike down an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification at the ballot box could disenfranchise minority and elderly voters at next week's primary and prompt other states to pass similar laws, voting advocates said Monday.
The court, in a splintered 6-3 ruling Monday, said Indiana's law, which took effect in 2006 and requires voters to present a state or federal photo ID card at the ballot box, does not violate the First or 14th amendments. The court said the law served as a justifiable protection to the electoral process.
"It's especially worrisome that the court has sent a signal making it easier to put up barriers to people voting," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school. "There's a real risk that people will see this as a green light to pass restrictive voter ID laws in other states."
More than 20 states require some type of identification at the polls. But only Georgia and Indiana require government-issued photo IDs. In recent years, appellate courts have upheld bitterly fought identification laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but none is as stringent as the Indiana law.
Advocacy groups, including the Brennan Center, say they know of no voter fraud case ever being prosecuted against someone who impersonated another voter at the polls. Indiana's Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita acknowledged there were no prosecutions in his state for impersonating voters, but said the measure was necessary to protect election integrity.
Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher, who argued the state's case before the high court, said Monday's ruling vindicates the law as a "common sense measure to protect the security and integrity of elections.
Of the remaining state primaries, Indiana's vote on May 6 has the most possibility for voter confusion over ID rules, voting advocates say. The remaining states, including Nebraska, Kentucky and Idaho, have much more lax identification requirements.
Those states that worry election advocates because of ongoing efforts to pass strict photo ID laws include Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. But it appeared unlikely Monday that legislators in those states would be able to push any such measures through before November's general election.
In Missouri, where the state supreme court overruled a previous photo-ID law, Republican Rep. Stanley Cox earlier this year proposed a constitutional amendment requiring such identification. He'd been waiting on the Supreme Courts decision before aggressively lobbying for it, but with Missouri's legislative session due to end May 16, Cox said Monday that the high court's ruling came too late.
"As a practical matter, the voters probably won't have this choice until 2010," Cox said.
Across the country, as many as 20 million people lack such identification, most of them minorities and the elderly who don't have drivers' licenses or passports and are unable to afford the cost of obtaining documentation to apply for such identification, advocacy groups say.
In Indiana, more than 20 percent of black voters do not have access to a valid photo ID, according to an October 2007 study by the University of Washington.
In tiny Marion County, 34 Indiana voters without the proper identification were forced to file provisional ballots in an offseason local election. According to Indiana's photo law, voters have 10 days to return to the county courthouse with the proper identification. They can also file an affidavit claiming poverty.
"Who's going to do that?" asked Bob Brandon, president of Fair Elections Legal Network, a nonpartisan network of election lawyers. "Who's going to show up and sign an affidavit saying 'I'm poor'?"
The same people who show up at the welfare office and say "Gimme money".
But, it will definitely stop real voter fraud. But, then, why try to do some real good when a possibility of harm, however, remote exists.
Shakespeare said it best: "First let's kill all the lawyers."
6-3 is NOT “splintered.”
The Rats continued attempts to allow illegals and dead people to vote is what undermines our freedoms and liberty.
Its about time the SCOTUS put the hammer to this stuff.
Then how on earth can they go down and vote in the first place???????????
And I bet they have to have identification when they do!
And since there is no constitutional right to vote, I saw screw em.
Why don’t the dims just set up a program to get legal voters ID? They drive them to the polls, why not drive them to get ID?
The answer of course is that dead people won’t be able to vote and living democrats won’t be able to vote for someone else or twice.
Gosh, maybe because the Voter ID program is working the way its supposed to?
Thank God that Bush won the 2004 election.
Because, John Kerry would have appointed two liberal judges to the Supreme Court. Instead of Roberts and Alito, we would have seen two more liberals appointed. Instead of a 6-3 decision upholding the law, it would have been 5-4 striking it down.
People have their issues with Bush, but conservatives have to be happy about his 2 picks to the Supreme Court.
The next president may have 2 or 3 vacancies to fill on the Court. Some justices are getting older and could retire in the next four years.
This is all about desperation cause the illegals, the death, multiple voters, prisoners, and the like will not be able to vote but once!... and they must "alive." :)
If there is ONE THING a country like the U.S. should strive for is the INTEGRITY OF THE VOTE...especially for the losers... they should know they lost fair and square.
The same people who show up at the welfare office and say “Gimme money”.
And I bet they have to have identification when they do!
The only I.D. these parasites need to collect welfare is a gas bill or rent receipt with their Name on it.
yeah, “splintered”...
It’s about time ID was required to vote. Stop a lot of fraud.
>The Supreme Court's refusal to strike down an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification at the ballot box could disenfranchise minority and elderly voters at next week's primary and prompt other states to pass similar laws, voting advocates said Monday.
So....these are the 'advocates' of all voters? Exactly who, in a democracy, DOESN'T advocate voting? A very conspicuous absence of needed adjectives here!
The court, in a splintered 6-3 ruling Monday, said Indiana's law, which took effect in 2006 and requires voters to present a state or federal photo ID card at the ballot box, does not violate the First or 14th amendments. The court said the law served as a justifiable protection to the electoral process.
6-3 is a pretty wide margin on this Court with its reliable voting blocs.
Right, just the way it “disenfranchises” them when they want to cash a check or get a library card or ...
Then how do they get their welfare checks cashed, apply for food stamps, or prove they're 21 to buy booze?
Notice how the Dems/Libs/MSM can never produce the Snuffalupagus they claim is the ‘disenfranchised voter’ who got turned away from the polls because of a lack of ID?
As for any chilling effect I say drop the thermostat. Those who aren’t supposed to be voting well....they aren’t supposed to be voting.
Funny how the libs want the simple made complex.
They need an ID to claim their welfare benefits, their medical care, their foodstamps, enroll their kids in public school, etc. They have IDs. The Dims have their collective panties in a wad because requiring a valid ID will cut down on voter fraud, and the Dims cannot win without fraud.
great post!
if you’re poor you have welfare ID
if you’re old, Social Sec & Medicare
this is all about Dumbocrats fearing loss of fraud privileges
glad to be living in Indiana today (even if we did let Bill Clinton into one of our high schools)
Yeah, really. Some ‘splintered’ 6-3 ruling. Three of them said the Democrats were morons, the other three said they were fools, too.
It’s a solid ruling on a simple, straightforward basis.
Unless there is is some sort of Indiana statute baring African Americans from obtaining ID’s at the DMV, that assertion is a flat out lie.
They are so old that there are no photographs of them?
They are so old that there are no photographs of them?
But I shouldn't have to in order to vote?
Given that my vote is the most important thing that comes with being an American citizen (and a fraudulent voter canceling mine out being the most egregious thing), I can live with that.
It's the one thing keeping McCain's chances alive for 2008. I might just have to eat that sandwich and vote for POTUS.
I'm so weary of misquotes.
The complete context of the quote is that IF you want to plunge the world into oppression-filled anarchy, THEN - first, you kill all the lawyers.
It was lawyers who argued AGAINST these assclowns, and lawyers who judged that states CAN require picture ID.
As Democrats are scrambling to use SuperDelegates to override the primary process, they are concerned about “disenfranchising” voters. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
How do the poor people cash their welfare and SS checks without a photo ID?
You read my mind.
They're free in Indiana, that was a significant factor in the decision.
There weren’t no cameras around when I was born. < /sarc >
You are right. People can slam on President Bush all they want (and I do too, over his illegal immigrant policies), but he’s far far better than the alternatives would have been. Looking at the bunch of contenders we have now, President Bush looks like a prince and a hell of a man.
In CT they used to be 2.00. at the DMV. And the lines for those get pretty long, people need them to sign up for food stamps, welfare, and to buy cigarettes or alcohol. Also, the SS office requires them.
Great post!
There used to be a stigma to using food stamps and the like. Not anymore. Too many generations who's job is to "go to the mailbox"
There is NO WAY Id could disenfranchise a voter! How stupid is this?
Does this meab I have to show some photo ID when robbing a bank? SHEESH How unfair!!@
I don't care. They need to identify themselves. If they are too stupid to figure out how to get them or self righteous that they don't believe them then they don't vote. TDB. No more voting fraud RATS. Your days are numbered.
Voter id for sure will deny some voters here in Calif their right to vote: for one, the millions of illegals who can’t be bothered to bring a copy of a utility bill or similar document showing they are US citizens (which is the extent of the Dem Party-controlled Calif govt’s anti-voting fraud efforts).
Dead people (described as “some elderly” in the Media), cats and dogs will suffer too.
Right on. If blacks are 12% of the population, and 20% don’t have voter ID. then a little over 2% of the total population doesn’t have voter ID.
Which means that almost 98% would. So what’s the problem?
Only half the people vote anyway(except for Philadelphia, where the voting rate is 110%(!)). So we are talking about 1% of the population at risk.
In a post 9/11 age, everyone needs a photo ID to do anything anyway. Some people are just going to have to get off their butts to be a useful citizen and get a voter ID to preserve the veracity of the vote.
Imagine that!
I think that would be wise. He’s against universal health care, too. Also, obviously, he supports the military and the mission.
“Across the country, as many as 20 million people lack such identification, most of them minorities and the elderly who don’t have drivers’ licenses or passports and are unable to afford the cost of obtaining documentation to apply for such identification, advocacy groups say.
Then how on earth can they go down and vote in the first place???????????”
Here in Calif, a Calif Resident Picture Id card is openly available for very little.
There are 3rd World countries with better anti-voter fraud measures than here in the USA. The Dem Party values the One Party Press and massive voter fraud. Their “count every vote” (to include illegals, felons, dead and pets but not military serving overseas) is important to them.
Worded another way: The Supreme Court's refusal to strike down upholding an Indiana law...
The Constitution says:
Article I Section 4 Clause 1The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Article II Section 1 Clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
It's clear that the Constitution gave the States the power to choose how to run their elections, and if the States want Voter ID's, that's their Constitutional right to require it.
-PJ
Does this mean dead people will have a harder time voting?
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.