NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted on 04/28/2008 8:38:42 PM PDT by neverdem
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law on Monday, concluding in a splintered decision that the challengers failed to prove that the law’s photo ID requirement placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.
The 6-to-3 ruling kept the door open to future lawsuits that provided more evidence. But this theoretical possibility was small comfort to the dissenters or to critics of voter ID laws, who predicted that a more likely outcome than successful lawsuits would be the spread of measures that would keep some legitimate would-be voters from the polls.
Voting experts said the ruling was likely to complicate election administration, leading to both more litigation and more legislation, at least in states with Republican legislative majorities, but would probably have a limited impact on this year’s presidential voting.
The issue has been intensely partisan, with Republicans supporting increased identification requirements for voters and Democrats opposing them. In what the court described as the “lead opinion,” which was written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the court acknowledged that the record of the case contained “no evidence” of the type of voter fraud the law was ostensibly devised to detect and deter, the effort by a voter to cast a ballot in another person’s name.
But Justice Stevens said that neither was there “any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification.” The “risk of voter fraud” was “real,” he said, and there was “no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters.”
The three others who made up the majority, Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel A. Alito Jr., said in an opinion by Justice...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Isn’t this the first time the Ford pick has ever taken the conservative stand on anything? Before he died, Ford said that Stevens was his greatest “achievement”.
Isn’t this just common sense? How is this keeping any honest citizen from voting? What honest person who’s registered to vote does not have at least one form of photo ID, probably in his wallet on hand all the time? We have to show a photo to get on a plane, cash a check, use a credit card, etc. No one seems to believe that is unconstitutional.
Hmm. A 6-3 decision is ‘splintered’ for this discredited NYT hanger-on. I’d call it aslam dunk.
Hopefully, a lawsuit is working its way thru the system regarding absentee voting which requires no ID. Onviously, the Dims are going to turn to that route now.
I don't like Florida's acceptance of “student ID’s” as sufficient identification for voting. I assume, like most other states, they have foreign students. How do they determine citizenship by a student ID?
Oklahoma doesn't have a voter ID law yet, but I have started showing mine as my own personal protest in favor of such a law.
If the courts keep this up, I may start considering my now worthless vote as being worth something again.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This will hurt Hillary because it will severely limit cheating. And who knows, if the idea spreads dead people might quit voting in Chicago.
Astounding.
How did the constitutional illiterates at the Supreme Court manage to render such an obviously correct ruling?
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
AP | Apr 28 | MARK SHERMAN
Posted on 04/28/2008 7:15:07 AM PDT by Aristotelian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2008034/posts
And what in heck is that third paragraph about?
No, splintered is a good description.
The opinions were 3-3-2-1.
There was a 3 vote majority opinion.
Another 3 vote block who concurred with the majority.
A two vote dissenting block.
and a one vote dissenting block.
I concur.
This is really going to mess things up for the rats.
NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She rejected “as utterly incredible and unreliable” an expert’s report that up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver’s license or other acceptable photo identification. Id., at 803. She estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver’s license or identification card. Id., at 807.6
If You Quack Like An Elitist Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama?
Law Should Be Changed to Free Guns
Transcript of Jeremiah Wright's speech to NAACP and link to the Nation(al) Press Club transcript
Hurricane forecaster's dispute with school focuses on global warming debate
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
It’ll get overturned.
As it is now, all current and prospective politicians have to do is hang out at the local 7-11 and see what they look like, and then SAY what they might want, to get elected.
God knows we can’t make politicians pay attention to things like “Who is a natural born American” or “How many of these people even understand the English language, not much less speak it”
even if it doesn’t get overturned, it’s 2 late. Think I should skip the Hable Espanol part and go right to the Mandarin.
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.