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'?"
The same people who show up at the welfare office and say "Gimme money".
But, it will definitely stop real voter fraud. But, then, why try to do some real good when a possibility of harm, however, remote exists.
Shakespeare said it best: "First let's kill all the lawyers."
6-3 is NOT “splintered.”
The Rats continued attempts to allow illegals and dead people to vote is what undermines our freedoms and liberty.
Its about time the SCOTUS put the hammer to this stuff.
Then how on earth can they go down and vote in the first place???????????
And I bet they have to have identification when they do!
And since there is no constitutional right to vote, I saw screw em.
Why don’t the dims just set up a program to get legal voters ID? They drive them to the polls, why not drive them to get ID?
The answer of course is that dead people won’t be able to vote and living democrats won’t be able to vote for someone else or twice.
Gosh, maybe because the Voter ID program is working the way its supposed to?
Thank God that Bush won the 2004 election.
Because, John Kerry would have appointed two liberal judges to the Supreme Court. Instead of Roberts and Alito, we would have seen two more liberals appointed. Instead of a 6-3 decision upholding the law, it would have been 5-4 striking it down.
People have their issues with Bush, but conservatives have to be happy about his 2 picks to the Supreme Court.
The next president may have 2 or 3 vacancies to fill on the Court. Some justices are getting older and could retire in the next four years.
This is all about desperation cause the illegals, the death, multiple voters, prisoners, and the like will not be able to vote but once!... and they must "alive." :)
If there is ONE THING a country like the U.S. should strive for is the INTEGRITY OF THE VOTE...especially for the losers... they should know they lost fair and square.
The same people who show up at the welfare office and say “Gimme money”.
And I bet they have to have identification when they do!
The only I.D. these parasites need to collect welfare is a gas bill or rent receipt with their Name on it.
yeah, “splintered”...
It’s about time ID was required to vote. Stop a lot of fraud.
>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.
So....these are the 'advocates' of all voters? Exactly who, in a democracy, DOESN'T advocate voting? A very conspicuous absence of needed adjectives here!
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.
6-3 is a pretty wide margin on this Court with its reliable voting blocs.
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.