Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law

CNN Washington Bureau ^ | January 9, 2008 | Bill Mears

[Salvation]

That would be a big plus for the Republicans!

[EDINVA]

We’ve had to produce photo ID in VA for years (pre-9/11). Now I think we should also require inked fingers as they did in the Iraqi election.

[M203M4]

I think some Dems genuinely resent the idea that millions of entities legally ineligible to vote (pets, illegals, dead people, felons, pets of dead illegal-immigrant felons, vacant lots) will be prevented from voting.

[AlaskaErik]

If you’re ambitious enough to vote then you should be ambitious enough to get a driver’s license or state ID card. This Indiana law will just impede Democratic electoral fraud.

[ICE-FLYER]

This is an amazing contrast. Driven religious LIBERALS are currently arguing in Washington DC that the “restriction” of BANNING guns from people in Washington DC is a “reasonable” restriction of that right. Yet when asked if the idea that a citizen simply produce a state ID, which ANY citizen can get, they howl that it is “UN-REASONABLE.”

Fruadulent Left...at it again. This is why they are RESENTED by a majority of Americans.

[cpdiii]

All the Supreme Court needs to do is read The Bill of Rights. The 10th amendment is as follows:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

This is not rocket science. This is a states right issue not a federal issue!

[MNJohnnie]

Since when do we have a “Conservative Supreme Court”?

We have 4 Leftists, 4 Conservatives and 1 Leftist, Kennedy, who swings both ways. The notion that this is a “Conservative” Court is absurd.

[TheMole]

What's bizarre is that any judge wouldn't be in favor of this. Although I realize that foreign laws and practices are not legal precedents that Americans should necessarily follow, AFAIK all other developed democracies require serious ID to vote. I know for sure that both Canada and Australia do. Most U.S. states have some form of identification card available from their motor vehicle agencies, and they're usually low-cost or free. Here's a link to Indiana's not-very-onerous requirements:

Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles - Getting an Identification Card

[MNJohnnie]

I had a Freeper tell me he knew Leftists in his Florida neighborhood who were snowbirds who in 2000 thought it was perfectly fine for them to vote both in FLA and at their summer homes because they “paid property taxes in both states”. They would vote absentee in NY and vote at the booth in FLA.

We need to tighten up our voting laws because of the fraud routinely perpetrated by the Left. This is a good 1st step

[Psycho_Bunny]

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.

What a completely professional sentence.  You certainly can't tell what the "reporter" believes.

[MNJohnnie]

Allowing illegal voters and multiple votes by certain voters disenfranchise the rest of us who vote our legitimate 1 vote. Voter Fraud is an attempt by the Left to disenfrahise millions of legal voters

[Rockitz]

Now all we need is a federal law that does the same.

[Arkinsaw]

“The real question is, does it disenfranchise anyone?”

The question is...is there an INTENT to ILLEGALLY disenfranchise?

We disenfranchise people all the time....for being too young....for being felons....for being aliens.....for being in a coma....for not wanting to take the time to register.

Requiring ID is not disenfranchise anyone that should be enfranchised. Any person who can legally vote can also get a valid ID. No restriction. The obvious intent of the law is to detect vote fraud not disenfranchise. Case closed.

[Cacique]

btt

[GATOR NAVY]

Isn't that the wrong question for a court to decide? The Court should be deciding if there is anything in the Constitution prohibiting legislatures from determining what they must do to prevent fraud.

There's only one justice who is probably looking at this case with that in mind, and he wasn't quoted in this article.

[Cobra64]

Hmm.... let me think about this. I need a photo ID to buy a six-pack or drive a car, but liberals question an ID to vote? This is a no brainer. Even a lefty liberal should understand.

[Lancey Howard]

It’s interesting how it’s always the Demorats who jump up and down and holler whenever initiatives are taken to prevent vote fraud. I wonder why that would be...?

[TheLion]

"Allowing illegal voters and multiple votes by certain voters disenfranchise the rest of us who vote our legitimate 1 vote. Voter Fraud is an attempt by the Left to disenfrahise millions of legal voters"

Amen Johnnie! The fact that we haven't secured the ballot box is beyond belief, but then again we have Democrats fighting every day to keep the privilege of cheating open to them.

[MNJohnnie]

It’s interesting how it’s always the Demorats who jump up and down and holler whenever initiatives are taken to prevent vote fraud. I wonder why that would be...?

I had that same thought watching the press conference on this today. Let hope millions of other voters have the same thought.