Posted on 05/01/2008 8:00:19 AM PDT by SmithL
The U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling on Indiana's voter ID law will rank as among the court's worst – up there with Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 ruling allowing forced separation of the races. It wasn't overturned until 1954. Here's hoping it doesn't take 58 years to overturn Monday's misguided decision.
The Indiana law is aimed at a phantasm: in-person voter fraud at the polls. In the words of the court's majority, "The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history." To find fraud, the justices went back to New York City in 1868. They also noted one possible case of fraud out of 2.8 million ballots cast in Washington's 2004 election. Yet they upheld the strictest voter ID law in the nation, one that disproportionately hits citizens who are old or young or urban or poor.
Indiana requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID (such as a driver's license) with a current address. This may not sound onerous, but it can be to large groups of people.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Ignorant article.
There is no hardship in getting a photo id.
Folks use them for a host of other things every single day.
Most likely a good reason for that, too. ;)
Where’s the barf alert?? Just reading the excerpt makes me want to jump through the internet and slap the writter.
SacBee stands up to be counted in favor of electoral fraud. Nice work, editors!
Pure unadulterated bull.
That just means they've gotten away with it.
I don't get it. If there is no problem with fraud, why should the editor be concerned about an antifraud measure?
Yes. Rank with one of the worst, right libs?
Right up there with Roe v. Wade?
Yeah, if you're an illegal or like to vote at several different precincts on election day.
I wonder if these folks will recommend pass legislation to forbid the asking for id’s to purchase beer, liquor, cigarettes, guns? How about the hardship it causes to prove I’m me when I want to write a check at Walmart, Safeway or another store or cash one at a bank?
Naw.........
Huh? No evidence. These guys have obviously never been to Lake County.
And they will probably vote absentee from their home state, too, then? No, college kids should NOT be allowed to vote locally if they still claim a home address in another city or state.
The law may or may not be effective or even necessary. But in a democratic republic, isn't that up to the people (through their elected representatives in the legislature) to decide? SCOTUS didn't pass judgement on the efficacy of the law, only on the constitutionality of it. If the people of Indiana, or any other state with a similar law don't like it, they can change it or repeal it altogether. I don't recall seeing anything in the SCOTUS ruling requiring states to require photo ID.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/10/that-woman-whos-challenging-indianas-voter-id-law-registered-to-vote-in-two-states/
What an idiot!
We have court rulings that invented out of whole cloth a constitutional right to abortion.
We have court rulings that evicerated states’ rights.
We have court rulings that expand government power to take property for “public benefit” when the constitution clearly only provided for seizure of property for “public use”.
And this idiot thinks that a ruling that upholds a duly passed law requiring proof of identity and eligibility to vote constitutes “one of the worst rulings in history”? Again, WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!
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.