Posted on 01/14/2008 9:52:57 PM PST by ricks_place
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a hugely important case about voter ID laws. Asking for identification at the polls may sound reasonable, but an Indiana law disenfranchises large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters. If the court upholds the law, as appears likely, it will be a sad new chapter in its abandonment of voters, a group whose rights it once defended vigorously.
As long as there have been elections, there have been attempts to keep eligible people from voting. States and localities adopted poll taxes, literacy tests, “white primaries,” “malapportionment”— drawing district lines to give a small number of rural voters the same representation as a large number of urban voters — and restrictions on student voting. In recent decades, the Supreme Court has rejected all of them.
The court understood that the Constitution guaranteed a robust form of democracy and saw its clear value for the nation. During the tumultuous late-1960s, Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that most of the country’s problems could be solved through the political process if everyone “has the opportunity to participate on equal terms with everyone else and can share in electing representatives who will be representative of the entire community and not of some special interest.”
In recent years, however, with a conservative majority in place, the court has become increasingly hostile to voters. During the oral arguments in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor showed disdain for voters who had trouble with Florida’s disastrous punch-card ballots. After insisting that the directions “couldn’t be clearer,” she suggested that the court ignore the ballots of voters who had failed to master the intricacies. That is precisely what it did, by a 5-4 vote.
Since Bush v. Gore, disdain for voters has become the norm....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Yeah, that’s just so much bs. Every State which has, or has proposed a Voter ID requirement, has had a requirement that the poor be given an ID at no cost.
No, they are at war with US. They know what they do.
Reality check, time. Gore's camp was asking the Supremes to divine the intent of a voter who had clearly marked a ballot for someone other than Gore as a vote for Gore. This is clearly a ridiculous request. The only surprising thing is that 4 justices signed off on the idea.
Would a drivers' license for Jane Q. Public allow her to vote if registered as Jane R. Quince if she also presented a marriage license showing a marriage between Jane R. Quince and John Q. Public?
I have a right to not have my vote cancelled out several times over by some dead guy in Camden, NJ.
I want to know which poor voters getting the welfares, did not have to produce any identification to cash the check or receive the bennies...
We must not place any burden in the way of voters who wish to cast their votes. After all, as Chief Justice Earl Warren declared, everyone should have "the opportunity to participate on equal terms with everyone else and can share in electing representatives who will be representative of the entire community and not of some special interest".
As long as there have been elections, there have been attempts to keep eligible people from voting. Laws that require voters to be registered before they are permitted to vote show contempt and disdain for people who are unable to master the intricacies of the voter registration process.
Therefore, I conclude that requiring voters to be registered prior to voting imposes an unfair and discriminatory burden on those who wish to vote. If the Supreme Court does not eliminate the requirement that voters be registered prior to voting, then it will disenfranchise large numbers of people, especially poor and minority voters. Blah blah blah, Halliburton, Diebold, Bushitler, President Gore, blah blah blah.
See, it's fun to be a simpleton and a confused leftist, isn't it?
Yeah, I can’t wait for this guy to call for those banks which require ID to cash welfare checks to be hit with a civil rights law suit. I have a feeling I’ll be waiting a loooooong time for that.
Yep, and that’s insane cause we have the guns!
One thing is certain. Without ID requirements we are all being partially disenfranchised by voter fraud as the power of our votes are diluted.
if you’re in a Rat precinct, probably twice.
So why didn’t Mrs Cohen address the voter fraud cases that do occur involve DEMOCRATS in DEMOCRAT districts.
Another NYT columnist lying, ducking and weaving. Par for the course for them.
My question was serious. Should a woman who changes her name because of an October wedding be denied the ability to vote?
Not really as the Court is comprised of 5 centrists and 4 communists.
Is she a felon?
Yes, these poor minority people are often fat, proving that they are eating and they can get beer, too (I’ve seen them buying it) so they must have a valid ID.
Besides, poor people can often get a state ID or license for free if they are really poor. (Many poor drive their own car(s) in America.)
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.