Posted on 04/28/2008 7:15:07 AM PDT by Aristotelian
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights. The decision validates Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
I think the Real ID law when it gets fully implemented will go a long way to solving this photo ID problem for voting if the states will adopt it as a requirement. Most people will have to have a Real ID to function.
Souter,Breyer and Ruth Buzzi Ginzburg.Do you need to know more?
You can't throw Souter out.A "confirmed bachelor" like him would have nowhere to go.
I’m surprised by Connecticut....although it’s not quite as “blue” as the other New England states.
How soon until Obama trots out Je$$e to complain photo IDs disenfranchize DAH BLACK MAN?
Here, let me help make this more accurate:
Say what you want about Bush, but he was forced by conservatives to appoint 2 very good justices to the bench after his first couple of trial balloon candidates were blown out of the water
Sorry to pop your bubble, but this is an area Bush has earned NO credit for. The results are because conservatives and talk radio spoke up and refused to be pushed aside.
It will not be long for California. At some point in the not too distant future California will be two classes. One class will be the expremely wealthy and the other will be Mexico’s poor. Since the extremely wealthy will not feel that they have to shoulder the tax burder of Mexico’s extreme poor they are going to ask the rest of us to support their serfdom. Sounds crazy?
‘photo ID is Good’ Bump from Acapulco.
Look out all of you states that think you can bluff, and let illegals vote!
I’m waiting for my Foxnews Alert....waiting....waiting.... I did get a Foxnews Alert when Rev Wright was about to give his speech full of hate.
The libs in Missouri very smartly decided that Voter Photo ID was unconstitutional under the MISSOURI Constitution. Unless Congress mandates photo ID (never happen, even assuming it would be desirable) or the Missouri Court makeup changes, this decision will have little effect on them.
It has been a long time since I read that MO decision, so I don’t recall if the law could be re-crafted for a “less burdensome” law and get a different result. IIRC, though, the Rats now have that governorship anyway, so it wouldn’t likely get passed.
This is a great decision, though, and should clear the way for the Arizona law and similar ones that could follow. Significantly, the Arizona law requires proof of CITIZENSHIP, not just residency and identity.
Doesn’t California have a ballot initiative underway for Voter ID?
It is a longshot, but we could pressure him enough into action to appoint a conservative.
With the Dems, there is no hope whatsoever.
Alito and Roberts are THE ONLY thing we got from Bush. So sad! We won’t even get that with McAmnesty. GOP needs to be replaced at this point!
Also, Don’t forget Bush almost Screwed up the Alito nomination too! (Thank GOD Harriot Meyers was harpooned!)
It will require a ballot initiative. That’s the only way that it will become law in CA.
That’s simply historically inacurrate.
That’s simply historically inacurrate.
“Common sense prevails”
Now if they would only get Heller Right!
Don't the poor, elderly and minorities need ID to cash their checks?
Does that mean banks are discriminating against them?(sarcasm)
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.