Posted on 04/29/2008 9:12:56 AM PDT by The_Republican
Congressional Democrats and minority groups assailed Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo-ID law as an affront to voting rights, but political realities in the states suggest that the ruling could have relatively limited impact nationwide.
Only three states — Indiana, Florida and Georgia — currently require voters to show government-issued photo IDs before stepping into the voting booth. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are considering similar requirements, but it’s not clear whether they can adopt them before the November elections.
Democratic insiders fear that a number of states, particularly in the Midwest and South, will copy the Indiana law now that the Supreme Court has upheld it.
“There’s the concern for our side that it can spread, other states can do what Indiana did,” said a Democratic strategist. “You may see a lot more of this now.” (No Shi* Sherlock)
But Neil Bradley, director of the Voting Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union, noted that only states with both Republican-controlled legislatures and Republican governors have been able to implement photo ID laws, creating a de factor partisan limit on the number of places where such requirements may be imposed.
“That situation doesn’t change by today’s opinion,” Bradley said. “So you’re not going to have like 20 states that are going to do it.”
In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a 2005 Indiana law requiring photo IDs for voters. Under the law, a voter who shows up at the polls without a photo ID can cast a provisional ballot to be counted only if, within the next 10 days, the voter shows a photo ID to the local county clerk.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the decision is “a body blow to what America stands for — equal access to the polls.” (Chuckie Speaks)
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the ruling “disappointing,” saying the decision “places obstacles to the fundamental rights of American citizens—especially the poor, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities—to participate in the electoral process.” (Bride of Chuckie Speaks)
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said the majority “failed to protect access to the ballot box for some of the most vulnerable Americans,” and argued that the Justice Department, under President Bush, has employed “the specter of purported ‘voter fraud’ for political advantage.”
“They do so at the expense of vulnerable communities and have excluded millions of elderly, low-income, disabled, and minority voters, even though in-person voter fraud has been proven time and time again to be a myth,” Leahy said. (Really Millions?)
With Indianans heading to the polls on May 6 in a contested Democratic presidential primary, minority groups were particularly outraged by the Supreme Court decision, arguing that huge blocs of voters potentially face disenfranchisement next month and again in the fall because they cannot meet the ID requirements.
“The voting process needs to as unencumbered as possible, and requiring a photo identification disenfranchises those citizens who might otherwise never have a need for identification--particularly in rural, poor, and minority communities,” said Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “This is a violation of our voting rights – and a deliberate attack on democracy.” (Who is this "Our" you are referring to? These "Our" don't have a Valid ID?)
John Payton, president and executive director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, offered a similar concern. “I think what we know from this opinion, what we can be confident of, is perhaps tens of thousands of eligible African-American voters will not be allowed to vote this year because this law has been upheld. That’s particularly disturbing because this is one of the most important election cycles we’ve ever seen in this country.”
Republicans, for their part, were uniformly positive about Monday’s ruling. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the decision will give Americans “renewed faith in their government’s ability to conduct fair and honest elections.”
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), whose state saw its photo ID law struck down by a state court, was similarly ebullient.
“By a convincing majority of six-to-three, the Supreme Court today affirmed a principle the American people have overwhelmingly supported for some time: asking citizens to produce a simple form of identification before voting is neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional – and if it helps impede voter fraud, absolutely necessary to ensure the basic integrity of the democratic process,” Blunt said in a statement.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy said that Indiana’s compelling interest in preventing voter fraud outweighed the burden the law places on voters. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said the photo ID requirement was “minimal and justified” and called Democratic efforts to overturn the law “irrelevant.”
In their dissent, Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the Indiana law “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens,” a “significant percentage” of whom would “likely” be deterred from voting. Justice Stephen Breyer said the law “imposes an unconstitutional burden” on voters without driver’s licenses or other former of ID.
Lawmakers from both parties became personally involved in the case as it wound its way through the federal courts, with Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Ind.), Robert Brady (D-Pa.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) filing petitions to overturn it. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who tried to push through a photo ID requirement during a 2006 debate on immigration, filed a brief in support of the law.
Dems are famous for getting the “Bad” voter lists and going Pct to PCT and voting for people they now are unlikely to show up. There is nothing stopping someone from going in to my Polling place and giving my address and name to the women who check you in. Even though they would know this person not to be me, they cannot ask for ID.
Lots of AZ Freepers here, so they may know. The problem is that California will NEVER have such a law. As long as that GIANT door is open, efforts of other States would be considerably negated. Still, this is step in right direction. People forget.....Algor ferried 5,000 Hatians during his Presidential bid.
Statements like this one demonstrate that the Rats will obstruct photo ID requirements and are thus in favor of voter fraud.
If they are still licensed in NY, they should be voting there, either in person or absentee.
CA could have such a law if it was put through via the initiative process. I don't know if there is anyone or a group that might step up and initiate it. Of cours the SCOTUS ruling sure helps.
The Republicans can so use this as an issue during the election. I’m willing to bet a very high percentage of Americans think the Dems are full of **** by saying how carrying an ID card (or getting one) is a “burden” on “our must vulnerable Americans”.
What a load. Ma and Pa Kettle use an ID card everyday.
Wasn’t this a case of Indiana snowbirders who were upset Indiana wouldn’t accept a Florida drivers license.
I understand their concern. When I registered as a Democrat to vote in the primary I was able to vote 11 times, all under different names.
Oddly enough, I’ve never heard of a poor, elderly, or disabled person who couldn’t obtain an ID card from their state government.
Democrats are so dedicated to voting that they vote absentee in New York and at the polls in Florida. Some newspaper or magazine did a quick check on the registration records in both states and found some last election.
The theory promulgated by the left is that poor people, disabled people and elderly people will not be able to get Drivers’ Licenses/State IDs because they will be unable to get to the State facility that provides them, or they will be unable to obtain the necessary qualifying documents. The hypothetical examples they propose is someone who is 80 years old and cannot get a birth certificate because the records are lost or he/she is unable to remember where/when they were born. Poor people won’t be able to afford to get transportation and/or the time off to go to a facility to obtain the ID, and disabled people will have access problems.
Of course, as has been pointed out, in two years they couldn’t come up with someone who actually had any such problems.
The gov switched from food stamps to plastic cards to cut down on fraud. Now they hand out the cards like candy. How hard can it be to put a photo on them? I can get a Sam's club card with photo in five minutes.
nontrival burdens like high taxes, wasteful gov't spending and unfunded mandates from loopy alphabet agencys, or taking of your shoes before you get on an airplane.
"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
LOL...."MILLIONS" that *can* get to the polls, but are unable to get to local DMV's ?????
With Indianans heading to the polls on May 6 in a contested Democratic presidential primary, minority groups were particularly outraged by the Supreme Court decision,
Another LOL.....I guess "minority groups" in Indiana are too poor to apply for their FREE Indiana ID card.
What a piece of s&it Souter is. He never fails to disgust.
They should fear this ruling because it is pure rat poison.
Without voter fraud many down ballot races can now be won by Americans voting for American candidates.
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.