Posted on 01/09/2008 8:22:32 PM PST by My_Name_is_a_Number
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A conservative majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to support an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote. The Supreme Court is reviewing an Indiana law that requires voters to show a photo ID. At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud would disenfranchise large numbers of Americans who might lack proper identification -- many of them elderly, poor or minority voters. In what has become a highly partisan legal and political fight, the justices wrestled with a balancing test of sorts to ensure both state and individual interests were addressed. Civil rights activists and the state Democratic Party complain Indiana's law is the most restrictive in the nation. "The real question is, does it disenfranchise anyone?"
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
How about, despite concerns that it could allow thousands of people to vote who aren't eligible?
I wonder if the justices have to confirm their identity before entering the Supreme Court building. If so, and I suspect they do, perhaps they could extrapolate a bit to society at large.
Not to mention the common practice of college students who vote in the town of their school as well as with an absentee ballot from their home state.
I live in a city that has several colleges, including three just in my neighborhood, and most of the kids live out of state yet vote at my polling place. You can't tell me they represent tens of thousands of double democrat votes.
Even Steven?
The Associated Press's Mark Sherman reports on a pending Supreme Court case in a way that seems to give both sides their due, but in substance does not:
The dispute over Indiana's voter ID law that is headed to the Supreme Court in January is as much a partisan political drama as a legal tussle.
On one side are mainly Republican backers of the law, including the Bush administration, who say state-produced photo identification is a prudent measure intended to cut down on vote fraud. Yet there have been no Indiana prosecutions of in-person voter fraud--the kind the law is supposed to prevent.
On the other side are mainly Democratic opponents who call voter ID a modern-day poll tax that will disproportionately affect poor, minority and elderly voters--who tend to back Democrats. Yet, a federal judge found that opponents of the law were unable to produce evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who had been barred from voting because of the law.
But look closely at the "yet" sentences that give the arguments against each side, and you'll see that one is much stronger than the other. The plaintiffs' inability to show that the law has prevented anyone from voting seems a persuasive argument against the Democratic position that the ID requirement is "a modern-day poll tax." By contrast, the absence of prosecutions does not actually rebut the Republican contention that the ID requirement "is a prudent measure intended to cut down on vote fraud."
Does Sherman mean there have been no prosecutions since the law went into effect, or ever? If the former, that would seem to be evidence of the law's success in deterring fraudsters from coming to the polls. If the latter, at most it means the law is superfluous--but it could also mean that prosecutors are reluctant to pursue voter-fraud cases, which, as our colleague John Fund has pointed out, tend to alienate half the electorate.
So what are we to make of Sherman's presenting these two arguments as if they were equally persuasive? Maybe pro-Democratic bias leads him to present the Democrats' poor argument as if it were as persuasive as the Republicans' better one. Or maybe pro-Republican bias leads him to offer a poor argument on behalf of the Democrats. The next paragraph argues for the former interpretation:
The Supreme Court, which famously split 5-4 in the case that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George Bush, will take up the Indiana law on January 9, just as the 2008 presidential primaries are getting under way.
The connection between Bush v. Gore and the Indiana case is . . . what exactly? Or did he just throw that in to prompt a Pavlovian response from Dems?
The Dems need to create a program to help people get IDs. The GOP, if someone wants to register as a Republican, should do the same thing.
my grandmother never had a drivers liscense. She still has never driven, to this day. (she’s in her 80s) Or a passport. She votes every year. Democrat, but votes nevertheless.
Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also
claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.
Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she¹s never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.
She is a lyar and a criminal, and this law prevented her from voting in the election when they began requiring ID.
More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951133/posts
But what about the children, unfortunate undocumented workers, criminals, and dead? Racism!
Hey CNN we don't want illegal aliens from Mexico voting in our elections!!! The only people who are disenfranchised are those not eligible to vote in the first place!!!
Wasn’t it Dems that wanted - and got - ‘motor voter’ registration at DVM offices in every state? That way when folks got their driver’s license (photo ID) they could also register to vote.
"despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote."Back in 1992, during the Los Angeles riots, many were arrested, and (IIRC) many of those who were arrested were here illegally. AND, as I recall, there were news reports that one, or some, of those folks had voting registration and false identification materials.
Now, this isn't proof (my memory's quite good, but that was 1992).
However, if someone had access to Lexus/Nexus, they might be able to search that/those news reports.
Alternatively, police reports from that time might contain the information.
So, apologies in advance if this turns out to be a false alarm. However, if memory serves, there exists reports of non-citizens with prima facie evidence of voter fraud or intent to commit same.
Note: I'm not a lawyer, so if I'm off base here, mea culpa.
Man, I LOVE this guy!
["Chief Justice John Roberts… pointed out the state provides free photo IDs to anyone who requests one to vote. "They (the state) help you get it," he said tartly. "If you don't have a photo ID, come in and we'll give you one." ]
Seems like: Game. Set. Match. Democrats Lose!
["Justice John Paul Stevens noted the law in question was passed by a GOP-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor...He said candidly that the law would "have an adverse affect on Democrats."
Great grasp of the obvious.
All-in-all, a lot of clear thinking on the SCOTUS today.
The integrity of the voting process MUST be upheld, or all elections could be considered questionable.
You have to Photo ID to buy cigarettes, what the freak is the problem?
Strong voter ID laws will be the end of the modern Democrat Party.
My wife is from a banana republic, and her country requires a tamper-proof ID to vote. :)
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.