Posted on 09/19/2006 12:59:17 PM PDT by SmithL
A state judge has thrown out the latest version of Georgia's law requiring voters to show photo ID, ruling that it violates the constitutional rights of the state's voters.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge T. Jackson Bedford Jr. issued the ruling Tuesday, nearly three weeks after lawyers argued both sides of the issue, which is likely headed for the Georgia Supreme Court before the Nov. 7 general elections.
Bedford said the photo ID requirement disenfranchises otherwise qualified voters and adds a new condition to voting that violates the state constitution.
In his 17-page ruling, Bedford took issue with the burden placed on voters to prove who they are using photo ID. Even if voters are allowed to cast ballots without the required identification, they must return within 48 hours with one of the six necessary photo IDs or their vote is forfeited.
"This cannot be," Bedford wrote, pointing out that photo ID are not even required to register to vote in Georgia.
"Any attempt by the Legislature to require more than what is required by the express language of our Constitution cannot withstand judicial scrutiny," Bedford wrote.
Supporters of the photo ID law say it is needed to protect against voter fraud. Opponents argue it disenfranchises poor, elderly and minority voters who are less likely to have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID.
The new law took effect July 1, but was blocked by state and federal judges during the state's July primaries, August runoffs and some local special elections held Tuesday.
Last October, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy struck down an earlier version of the law, saying it amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax. The Georgia Legislature addressed his complaints in the latest version, but when Murphy issued an injunction before the July 18 primaries, he said the state had not taken enough time to educate voters.
Because the U.S. Department of Justice didn't approve the photo ID requirement until late June, the state's election board had only three weeks to educate voters before the primaries — a window that was too short, Murphy said then.
Elections supervisors across the state have trained poll workers on both the old law and the new one.
Last week, Murphy blocked the law from being enforced in more than 20 special elections Tuesday.
In Mexico, voters have to show an ID to vote, looks like this Judge wants Georgia to be fourth world entiity.
I like the Purple Ink idea, why could we not use it in the USA at least it would keep multiple voters away. Still a voter ID card should be the least we should require.
"Opponents argue it disenfranchises poor, elderly and minority voters who are less likely to have a driver's license or other valid government-issued photo ID."
Isn't it illegal to not be in posession of a valid ID at any given time?
I don't mind the purple ink at all. In fact I would be proud of it.......On Wednesday morning we would all see who voted at work and who didn't, unless it was absentee.......
Drinking is not a right, voting is.
Of course in MY world drinking is surviving...
And in related news, there will be record voting for Dems this election cycle.
BTTT for your and other comments on this thread.
"I like the Purple Ink idea,.."
If I have 10 fingers and 10 toes, can I vote 20 times? If so, that would at least limit the multi votes done by the Dems!
You would be wrong, on both!
Voting is not a right either.........
>>This argument is so tired. Everybody has a photo ID. The
>>tiny few who don't are more than likely anti-government
>>zealots who have no intention of voting in the first
>>place.
>>
>>Or illegal aliens.
The illegal aliens have more ID (and in more names) than you do :-)
Would not be the first time. But there are two judges at issue apparently.
Or cash a check.....
Or use a credit card....
Or get a library card...
Or..........
This law has been struck down by several Judges. Judge Bedord is just the latest. But Bedford was not appointed, he was elected in a non-partisan race. So I can't say for sure what his political affiliation is, but I seem to recall seeing or hearing of him attending a lot of GOP functions.
"Article II, Section I, Paragraph II, states: Every person who is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia as defined by law, who is at least 18 years of age and not disenfranchised by this article, and who meets minimum residency requirements as provided by law shall be entitled to vote at any election by the people."
The Constitution sets forth several requirements, two of which are that the person be a citizen of the United States and a resident of Georgia. It is not up to the judiciary to decide what ID satisfies those requirements, that is a function of the legislature.
More judicial bs.
Hmmmm. Wonder who they might be!?!?
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.