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.
“They also need to time stamp the votes to prevent leftist poll workers from voting for voters that did not show up after polls close.”
Yep, these are the precincts where the turnout is 98% or better.
Call for more ballots due to “heavy volume”, these go into a back room where they are “voted”, then at the end, they count the people who are enrolled but did not vote, mark them as “voted”, and stick that number of ballots on the box. It’s quick and easy and poll watchers can miss it (for some odd reason!).
Is there anything which prevents or anyone who checks to see if college students don't vote absentee in their home state and then in their college town. Is there any effort on the part of republicans or election officials to check on this?
Likewise people who have moved from the liberal northeast to the sun belt; is there any check on their voting locally and absentee in their old precincts?
Liberals will deny it, but from the people I have spoken with and listened to their seems to be a very different attitude about fraudulent voting just as there is a liberal conservative split on other moral issues.
I think conservatives like liberals feel no guilt about doing everything legally they can do, to win at the polls.
I think when confronted with the opportunity to commit actual voter fraud the first instinct for conservatives is to refuse because voter fraud is immoral and anti-American. I think that many (not all) liberals see it as a question of what is the greater good. The value of electing liberals to stop the war and help the poor outweighs and trumps the importance of an honest election.
If any of the disabled, elderly or poor had wanted to attend the Supreme Court hearigs regarding this case they’d have had to have had a photo ID.
If any of the disabled, elderly or poor had wanted to attend the Supreme Court hearigs regarding this case they’d have had to have had a photo ID.
If Democrats would only look on the bright side, this will cut down on those long lines at the polls they are always complaining about!
Why aren’t Republicans claiming the real reason Dems don’t like the decision: Democrats depend on voter fraud in big — Dem controlled — cities.
Just say it then repeat it, over and over.
As I recall one of the original litigants wasn’t an Indiana resident eligible to vote there. They ended up paring down the litigants, but in the end the Democrats had NO ONE to show as an example of someone who was disallowed to vote by this law.
Most states offer free ID cards for senior citizens and those persons who are on disability. If the Dems want them to vote so badly, they can organize vans to take them to get their IDs.
What I don’t get is how these people are living without some kind of ID. How manys states let them collect benefits without appropriate ID anyway?
The courthouse in the county where my Dad was born, burned, taking with it all records. There is a very clear process by which you get a substitute birth certificate. He had to do it so he could collect Social Security when he retired.
He can't do it!
He's part of the Democrat caucus that adopted that rule.
Yeah Upchuck, I bet everyone of those also has a hard times getting access to the welfare office or their food stamps.
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)
Hey San Fran Nan, how about the fundamental rights of American citizens to ensure FAIR elections? No more dead voters, no more voting twice or voting fo yo gramma.
“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?)
So leaky Leahy, are you admitting that in-person voter fraud is NOT taking place? What about absentee voter fraud? Tell us more, leaky.
I suspect now that this has been heard and upheld by the Supreme Court, that will change.
WHERE THERE’S A RAT THERE’S VOTER FRAUD!!!!!
We can't trust him BUT he just MIGHT do what he says he will do so at least we have a chance with him. We have NO chance with the other two RATS.
Are you serious?
You can trust McCain. Trust him to screw you up to 75% as bad as the other two. (I’m still going to vote for him though.)
Ohio requires ID now too.
We've just completed a primary season without one genuinely qualified Presidential candidate even entering the race, much less getting close to the nomination.
This stuff is just another side show - and increasingly, America's best and brightest are focusing on their own lives and enterprises and tuning the whole thing out.
Here in Texas I’ve seen lots of people vote who could not speak a word of English and only had to have a street address to be allowed vote.
What a crock. If you’re able to go out and vote you’re able to go out and get a free state ID card. If the Rats are so worried about it, let them take people to the DMV like they take voters to the polls. The Rats real concern is that this will make election fraud more difficult for them.
It’s time to require IDs for all who vote and on a national scale.
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.