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 ...
Given illegal voters and illegal votes, it is obvious that the voting system must be able to prevent that problem.
Every American citizen must identify him/herself for ANY other endeavor they pursue. Any. From going to school, to driving, to having kids play little league, to food stamps, to flying anywhere, to writing checks, to getting a debit or credit card, Americans must identify themselves.
It is entirely disengenuous to claim that it is a burden to ask them to identify themselves at the voting booth.
It is simply a dishonest claim.
I wonder what the people in Iraq would say about this sort of thing... The people who lined up for hours, often walking miles to the poling places (since vehicle traffic was banned) under the threat of death.
The simple reason for opposing voter ID it to facilitate voter fraud. There's no other reason.
Mark
I heard an interview yesterday between Neil Cavuto and some official from Maryland. The state is issuing a new class of drivers license for “non citizens”.
Cavuto asked, “Wouldn’t that license allow the person to vote?”. The official smarmily reassured us that won’t happen. Why? Because they have to sign an oath that they are eligible to vote!
Yep. Works for me. /s
So issue voter ID cards. What’s the problem?
Instead of relying on some ID issued for a purpose unrelated to voting, just issue an ID that IS related to voting.
Wouldn’t that solve both problems?
you must go back to the end of the line. Common sense is not allowed.
Course, as far as a license goes...maybe expiration is only about fees ?
What the status of the Georgia voter ID law? IIRC Georgia passed a measure requiring a voter ID a couple years back. The court stuck it down because paying for the ID amounted to a poll tax. So the legislature made voter ID cards free of charge. That wasn’t good enough either said the court; it discriminates against people that don’t have govt-issued IDs. So where does it stand now? Anyone know?
From what I understand, valid photo ID is free for the asking under this Indiana law.
The Dems are acknowledging by their protest that
a) they want to be sure that ineligible voters continue to vote
b) that their constituents are indeed too damn lazy to get up and get a free ID.
They DID! (search boortz' website)
Their poor disenfranchised voter example turned out to be a criminal. The "poor" woman owned homes in Indiana and Florida, was registered to vote in both states, but only had a Fla driver's license, which couldn't be used in Indiana.
And, by the way, she was fraudulently taking "homestead" payments in both states.
And EASY! Just turn off all logic circuits in your brain and let your feelings engulf you. And don't be bothered by any of that "trickery" that people pull by pointing out the contradictory nature of your positions.
From their perspective, forcing the Democrats to pay for voter validation is like making someone dig their own grave.
Bump
Yes. his argument does boil down to that.
Unfortunately, 99% of the people on the street do not know that the Florida Supreme Court was trying to usurp the rights of theFlorida legislature under the U.S. Constitution. In part it was that the legislature would not stand up and say that loudly enough.
O what IS one going to say about wealthy, educated Jewish women who can not decipher a ballot—designed by Democrics by the way—that a 6th-grade class could manage without voting for Pat Buchanan? That their late husbands always told them what to do?
Any person without a picture ID has no business voting in the first place. They have removed themselves too far from the mainstream of American life for their opinion to count.
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.