Posted on 09/17/2009 7:47:19 AM PDT by Abathar
INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that Indiana's voter identification law is unconstitutional.
6News is looking through the 29-page ruling now and will provide details from it as soon as possible.
The decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law in 2008, a week before the presidential primary, in a splintered 6-3 ruling.
Backers of the law, which requires a voter to present a photo identification to cast a ballot, said it curbs voter fraud.
Those against the law contend that it keeps poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
The law passed in 2005 with the ardent support of Gov. Mitch Daniels and other Republicans in state government.
(Excerpt) Read more at theindychannel.com ...
This was the model used by other states to draft theirs after the Supreme Court upheld it and it was used in the 2008 election, WTH is going on here?
Another globalist tyrant in a black robe. Does Indiana have a recall provision for jurists?
I hate to have the Feds involved in things, but for national elections we need a federal law that requires voter ID. If the state doesn’t like it, fine, they don’t have to do it, and their votes will not be included in the tally. For their state elections, I guess they can do whatever stupid thing their citizens will allow.
The courts of the US are openly fermenting insurrection.
How is 6-3 a “splintered ruling”?
Better believe we will find out, it was the state court of appeals that just did this, and it was already ruled on by the S.C..
seems this would be quickly overturned by a challenge upstream federally since direct precedence is only one year old
I think this problem is worthy of a constitutional amendment.
Coming as it does on top of the ACORN scandals this is especially obnoxious. It is legitimate to have laws designed to prevent vote fraud, and there was nothing onerous about this law. This just opens the door wide, again, to vote fraud.
Indiana League of Women Voters (Democrat) got it killed...
This PASSED the US Supreme Court Test, but the State Appeals Court is throwing it out because it treats Absentees differently than live voters.
(HINT: Absentee voter fraud is where it’s at, now)
The same way a “5-4” Rowe v. Wade was “decisive”.
Indiana courts can’t overturn a Fed supreme court ruling, can they? it’s a higher court.
So how do the poor, elderly and minorities board aircraft in Indiana??
Indeed, I don’t see any other way to avoid an outright slaughter and civil war.
We cannot live with these people. They are insisting on enslaving us, using government to do so.
And we will not be enslaved.
A peaceful separation at the state level would be preferred, but the collectivists wouldn’t allow that, because they are intent on forcing everyone to conform to their will.
Leftists even reject the idea when you dispel this excuse with an offer to provide state issued photo ID at no cost to the needy.
They come up with an even lamer excuse of the poor/elderly being unable to go get the ID.
Well, bleeding heart lib - GO TAKE THEM TO GET IT.
But Indiana Appellant Courts says "OH *HELL* NO, we STATE guys will KICK YOUR SUPREME ASSES TO THE CURB.
"Cuz we are TOUGH."
Why do we keep hearing this excuse every election cycle?
If they are so concerned about the poor, elderly, and minority voters, then why can't someone bus them to the DMV the way they bus them to the polls?
Problem solved once and for all!
-PJ
HUHHHH.
The Supreme’s said it was constutional...and this LOWER court reverses the SCOTUS. Did I read this wrong?
That is the primary duty of the U.S. Supreme Court; to rule on the Constitutionality of the laws that are passed by Congress.
Please review the separation of (enumerated) powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
Did they rule that this violated the Indiana Constitution or the United States Constitution?
The article does not provide critical details.
If the Indiana Constitution, then there is no federal issue.
If the United States Constitution, then I would assume the constitutional question is different than in the previous ruling.
WITHOUT QUESTION.
I await orders.
poor old and black folks seem to be able to come up with ID to apply for welfare, social security, driver’s licenses, cash checks and buy liquor
Still need ID’s to get in a RAT Town Meeting though ,,, they’ll take your illegal vote but won’t take your guff!
My mom is a precinct committeeman, she is well aware of how easy it is to use the absentee ballot system for fraud. She sits in the courthouse basement with a bunch of other old women for weeks going through and checking every single ballot, while their Democratic counterparts do the same.
LOL!
Because that all-holy, infallible oracle "THE PRESS" said so. How dare you question it, you ignorant peon?
;'}
Sure...
If you are so removed from society that you do not have a picture ID, then you have no business voting.
PS: Don't forget to tell your friends (and enemies) that police will be in full force at the polls on election day, looking for anyone with warrants, unpaid traffic tickets, or unpaid child support. Vote at your own risk!
They won’t even give an answer to that question, they just say it does and leaves it up to us to prove otherwise.
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!! I know my friends in Indiana won’t be happy.
EVERYONE should be required to show ID before they vote. I think they used to have it here in Missouri, before a tyrannical court threw it out.
I always show my ID before I vote. I don’t care if it’s required or not.
It’s common-sense! NO ID, YOU DON’T VOTE!!!!
Been there, done that....
While Absentees are the hole in the system, one the DEMOCRATS in NWI and Indy use to great effect, throwing this whole thing out is a GROSS miscarriage of justice!!
Long past time for tyrants in black to meet the citizens to see what they have to say about it.
Nope, trying to figure this one out myself.
Roe v. Wade was actually decided 7 - 2. I don’t know whether or not that is sufficiently “decisive” for you.
sitetest
I read this the same way ... a lower court attempting to overthrow SCOTUS. I guess legal gridlock would favor the left, if it occurs.
So, the key question then ...
WAS THE 2008 ELECTION THE LAST FREE ELECTION IN THE US?
(secondary question, quite obvious, I will leave unstated)
Neutering ACORN might give us a couple more semi-legitimate elections.
Maybe that will be enough to turn things around.
If not, there’s always the “next box of liberty”.
Because I am just that! ;^)
Oops.
My bad.
You are correct. It was 7-2 and it was “decisive”.
Obviously there is an open attempt to destroy ALL 3 branches of the American Contitutional Government.
Actually I now believe that this HCR is a diversion, the true goal may be the total destruction of the Constitution.
The three branches of Government are is serious jeopardy.
What part of the constitution does this violate?!
No one knows who you vote for, just that you are who you say you are, and that you live in the district that you are voting in.
I need to present ID to get into a bar, and I’m in my 30s!
A 6-3 vote is "splintered"?
The USSC rejected the original appeal on specific grounds (the grounds that were entered in the appeal).
The appellate court is using different grounds, this time.
This happens all the time.
INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that Indiana’s voter identification law is unconstitutional because of the way absentee voting handled.
In the unanimous, 29-page ruling, the court said it tossed out the law because in-person voters are treated differently than those who submit absentee ballots.
In-person voters are required to show a photo identification to prove who they are, but there are no requirements for an affidavit from mail-in voters.
“A less stringent requirement for absentee voters than for those voting in person would not be reasonable,” the court opined in its ruling.
The ruling cited “inconsistent and partial treatment favoring absentee voters who choose to mail their votes” as the primary reason for its decision.
The appeals court decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state’s voter ID law in 2008, a week before the presidential primary, in a splintered 6-3 ruling.
Backers of the law said it curbs voter fraud. Those against the law contend that it keeps poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
The law passed in 2005 with the ardent support of Gov. Mitch Daniels and most other Republicans in state government.
.
.
.
If I am reading this it seems they think the law is too lenient to absentee ballots, not too strict on in-person voters, their might be hope yet. If the state wants to make it harder to absentee vote I say go for it.
Ok, so the SCOTUS will have to decide again whether to take the case. Thanks for the clarification.
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.