Posted on 04/28/2008 3:55:37 PM PDT by SmithL
The Supreme Court's refusal to strike down an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo identification at the ballot box could disenfranchise minority and elderly voters at next week's primary and prompt other states to pass similar laws, voting advocates said Monday.
The court, in a splintered 6-3 ruling Monday, said Indiana's law, which took effect in 2006 and requires voters to present a state or federal photo ID card at the ballot box, does not violate the First or 14th amendments. The court said the law served as a justifiable protection to the electoral process.
"It's especially worrisome that the court has sent a signal making it easier to put up barriers to people voting," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school. "There's a real risk that people will see this as a green light to pass restrictive voter ID laws in other states."
More than 20 states require some type of identification at the polls. But only Georgia and Indiana require government-issued photo IDs. In recent years, appellate courts have upheld bitterly fought identification laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but none is as stringent as the Indiana law.
Advocacy groups, including the Brennan Center, say they know of no voter fraud case ever being prosecuted against someone who impersonated another voter at the polls. Indiana's Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita acknowledged there were no prosecutions in his state for impersonating voters, but said the measure was necessary to protect election integrity.
Indiana Solicitor General Tom Fisher, who argued the state's case before the high court, said Monday's ruling vindicates the law as a "common sense measure to protect the security and integrity of elections.
Of the remaining state primaries, Indiana's vote on May 6 has the most possibility for voter confusion over ID rules, voting advocates say. The remaining states, including Nebraska, Kentucky and Idaho, have much more lax identification requirements.
Those states that worry election advocates because of ongoing efforts to pass strict photo ID laws include Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. But it appeared unlikely Monday that legislators in those states would be able to push any such measures through before November's general election.
In Missouri, where the state supreme court overruled a previous photo-ID law, Republican Rep. Stanley Cox earlier this year proposed a constitutional amendment requiring such identification. He'd been waiting on the Supreme Courts decision before aggressively lobbying for it, but with Missouri's legislative session due to end May 16, Cox said Monday that the high court's ruling came too late.
"As a practical matter, the voters probably won't have this choice until 2010," Cox said.
Across the country, as many as 20 million people lack such identification, most of them minorities and the elderly who don't have drivers' licenses or passports and are unable to afford the cost of obtaining documentation to apply for such identification, advocacy groups say.
In Indiana, more than 20 percent of black voters do not have access to a valid photo ID, according to an October 2007 study by the University of Washington.
In tiny Marion County, 34 Indiana voters without the proper identification were forced to file provisional ballots in an offseason local election. According to Indiana's photo law, voters have 10 days to return to the county courthouse with the proper identification. They can also file an affidavit claiming poverty.
"Who's going to do that?" asked Bob Brandon, president of Fair Elections Legal Network, a nonpartisan network of election lawyers. "Who's going to show up and sign an affidavit saying 'I'm poor'?"
Right, just the way it “disenfranchises” them when they want to cash a check or get a library card or ...
Then how do they get their welfare checks cashed, apply for food stamps, or prove they're 21 to buy booze?
Notice how the Dems/Libs/MSM can never produce the Snuffalupagus they claim is the ‘disenfranchised voter’ who got turned away from the polls because of a lack of ID?
As for any chilling effect I say drop the thermostat. Those who aren’t supposed to be voting well....they aren’t supposed to be voting.
Funny how the libs want the simple made complex.
They need an ID to claim their welfare benefits, their medical care, their foodstamps, enroll their kids in public school, etc. They have IDs. The Dims have their collective panties in a wad because requiring a valid ID will cut down on voter fraud, and the Dims cannot win without fraud.
great post!
if you’re poor you have welfare ID
if you’re old, Social Sec & Medicare
this is all about Dumbocrats fearing loss of fraud privileges
glad to be living in Indiana today (even if we did let Bill Clinton into one of our high schools)
Yeah, really. Some ‘splintered’ 6-3 ruling. Three of them said the Democrats were morons, the other three said they were fools, too.
It’s a solid ruling on a simple, straightforward basis.
Unless there is is some sort of Indiana statute baring African Americans from obtaining ID’s at the DMV, that assertion is a flat out lie.
They are so old that there are no photographs of them?
They are so old that there are no photographs of them?
But I shouldn't have to in order to vote?
Given that my vote is the most important thing that comes with being an American citizen (and a fraudulent voter canceling mine out being the most egregious thing), I can live with that.
It's the one thing keeping McCain's chances alive for 2008. I might just have to eat that sandwich and vote for POTUS.
I'm so weary of misquotes.
The complete context of the quote is that IF you want to plunge the world into oppression-filled anarchy, THEN - first, you kill all the lawyers.
It was lawyers who argued AGAINST these assclowns, and lawyers who judged that states CAN require picture ID.
As Democrats are scrambling to use SuperDelegates to override the primary process, they are concerned about “disenfranchising” voters. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
How do the poor people cash their welfare and SS checks without a photo ID?
You read my mind.
They're free in Indiana, that was a significant factor in the decision.
There weren’t no cameras around when I was born. < /sarc >
You are right. People can slam on President Bush all they want (and I do too, over his illegal immigrant policies), but he’s far far better than the alternatives would have been. Looking at the bunch of contenders we have now, President Bush looks like a prince and a hell of a man.
In CT they used to be 2.00. at the DMV. And the lines for those get pretty long, people need them to sign up for food stamps, welfare, and to buy cigarettes or alcohol. Also, the SS office requires them.
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.