Editorial: Voter ID ruling will rank among court's worst

Sacramento Bee ^ | 5/1/8 | Editor

[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.

[Phantom Lord]

[Hoffer Rand]

Wow. Let me guess. This poor, innocent “victim” was never charged, right?

And just for the record, a show of hands for anyone surprised that 0bambi is against voter ID requirements. Anyone??

[CSM]

Yep, requiring potential voters to show the ID that they must legally already have, is just as bad as murdering babies. Yepper.

[CSM]

It looks to me like Ms. Clemente was the victim of the DMV and its inefficiencies. I’d be willing to bet that she has a burning desire for the health care system to be run as efficiantly.

[jmaroneps37]

Yes, of course asking people to prove who they are to write a check for ten bucks is perfectly acceptable, but asking the same guy to show a picture ID is a crime against humanity. Actually it is a crime against the rat’s voter fraud schemes.

[rednesss]

Nah Illegals will still be able to vote, especially in Oregon, they hand out Driver Licenses to illegals every day, and because of the Motor Voter Laws they get signed up to vote at the same time. Plus Oregon went to mail in ballots so once you’re on the roles, you get sent a ballot. No one checks your ID.

[Eva]

Not only do you get sent a ballot, but that ballot will be forwarded to any address you give the post office

[count-your-change]

This story is bogus. An original birth cert. is not a certified copy nor need it be. If a copy is used it would be from the state and would be certified.
Birth certificate wouldn't have her married name on it unless she was married at birth, highly unlikely.
A simple phone call to the branch would tell what documents were needed so this ‘returned again and again’ is nonsense too.
$28 for a copy of her birth cert.? Blame Mass. though everyone should have a copy, a certified copy.
To this story I apply my tagline.

[The Great RJ]

Even this photo ID requirement still allows illegals and others to vote as photo IDs are far too easy to get. It just makes it harder to have the voters resurrected from cemeteries vote.

[rednesss]

"Not only do you get sent a ballot, but that ballot will be forwarded to any address you give the post office"

Actually not in Oregon. I found this out the hard way. If you move, you have to notify the Elections Dept in the county you live in and give them your new address, the PO will not forward ballots.

[bonehead4freedom]

I noticed that they were whining that out of state students who are usually not legal residents of the state they attend school couldn't vote in an election where the laws affect them, by that line of reasoning if I live in Ohio but across the border in Indiana then I should be able to vote in those elections.In wanting students,the homeless and those who hang out at the food bank signed up it provides a guaranteed voting block to keep the socialists in power.
I would like to see voting restricted to age 21,property owner, or taxpayer (not refund filer) or military service.I think people who finance or protect America will have less tolerance for redistribution schemes then the parasite class.

[mbynack]

Ten out of Seven voters in Chicago think that Voter ID is a bad policy.

[rocksblues]

$28 for a birth certificate sounds like robbery

New York State it's $30.

[jincarolina]

Going through daily life doesn’t everyone need to have a photo ID?

[Eva]

In WA State, they forward ballots. They have always forwarded absentee ballots, so they just continued the practice when they went to all mail. It creates a real mess.

When we were in a temporary rental while building, we each received two ballots, but then so did everyone else that we knew, so that was no surprise.

Then when we moved in to our new house, we called and changed the address for my husband, myself and my daughter. Then for a primary election, they sent my daughter a ballot for the election in our old district. When I called and checked on it, they told me that she could go ahead and vote in it, if she wanted to, since she had the ballot.

[rocksblues]

In NJ they make the women show a copy of their marriage license.

[knuthom]

The example is of a woman who had to make four trips to get an ID because she did not have the correct documents. That is not unusual for someone getting a new car or driver's license. These things are a hassle for everyone.

When I moved to Missouri, I had to make several trips to get my car licensed and my driver's license. They would tell me I need a paper and I would go find it. Then they would tell me I needed another document and I would go get that. Now that I know what is required, I do it all in one trip.

I thought the requirements were pretty "onerous" at the time. Especially having to go to the courthouse and get proof that I did not owe personal property taxes to the state I had moved into. I thought my out-of-state license and registration should have been sufficient to show that I just moved from another state.

[Darren McCarty]

I’m not even going to click on that link. Anyone who equates ID to vote with an abomination like Plessy v Ferguson is one stupid son of a bitch.

[Political Junkie Too]

The Supreme Court was simply upholding the Constitution.

Article I Section 4 Clause 1

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Article II Section 1 Clause 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...

It's clear that the Constitution gave the States the power to choose how to run their elections, and if the States want Voter ID's, that's their Constitutional right to require it.

-PJ

[SunStar]

Ignorant morons.

It figures that liberals would take the position opposing protecting my vote and side with the idea that presenting identification is the same as racism/sexism/bigotry. Hogwash! They have everything backward. If they want to protect the right to vote - then protect the vote itself! Citizens of the United States are entitled to have their single vote heard, and non-citizens have no right to cast an illegal ballot.

This author states that there are no cases of in-person voter fraud. Ironically, this is the whole point! There is no way to tell if people showing up are voting legally or illegally, since they are not required to show ID!

It's funny (in a sad, society-is-deteriorating sort of way) -- liberals love the Supreme Court when it "finds" rights not granted in the Constitution, but has no problem discounting the decisions of the court when it upholds rights that are enumerated in the Constitution, such as the right to vote.

Baltimore Sun - your editorial staff sucks rotten eggs, and I spit in your ideological face!