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 ...
Consider the case of Theresa Clemente, a 78-year-old registered Indiana voter who has no driver's license. An amicus brief detailed her story. When she heard about Indiana's new law, she attempted to get a qualifying photo ID. She went to the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles with her Social Security card, utility bill, property tax bill, credit card and voter registration card. Not good enough. She needed her birth certificate. She returned with it, only to be told that it was not a "certified copy." So she mailed an application to Massachusetts, where she was born (cost: $28). She returned to the BMV, only to be told that her birth certificate had her maiden name, not her married name. She had to get a certified copy of her marriage certificate and return a fourth time.
I absolutely refuse to believe that a woman lived to the ripe old age of 78 in this country, and had not obtained a photo ID yet. Right or wrong, you cant even fart in this country without a Photo ID.
If theres one, and only one, reason for the government to demand a verifiable photo identification, it would be to exercise your right to select whos going to run the government.
Showing off their usual soft bigotry of low expectations, the Left assumes, without showing any actual evidence, that "the poor", and blacks specifically, don't have the wherewithal to obtain a photo I.D. Meanwhile, in the real world, anybody who wanted to buy a six-pack upon reaching the age of 21 made sure they had a photo I.D. long ago.
Putting aside the subtle bigotry of their official rationale for opposing Voter I.D., we all know that the real reason the Left has opposed this sane and practical safeguard of our elections is that they don't want fair elections! They cry and wail because they know that tens of thousands of deceased voters in Chicago are about to get disenfranchised as soon as photo I.D. laws catch on. They are upset in Sacramento because they were counting on Mexican Illegals to vote for the Socialism that real Americans won't vote for.
If they can't sneak in felons, illegals, and the dead to the polls, the Dem'Rats have no serious prospects for expanding their voter rolls. They certainly have no interest in catering to middle class white voters.
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.txt
“Voter cited by opponents of Indiana’s ID law registered in two states”
“In 2005 Obama introduced a Senate resolution urging the Department of Justice to challenge any state law mandating photo IDs for voting.”
Get that?...
The Sacramento Bee is a socialist Rag and They are afraid that they wont be able to get their Illegal friends Photo Ids in time to Cheat this November...
These morons are afraid it will have the same effect of disenfranchising minorities in the way that literacy tests and poll taxes might have. That's a stretch. All they are requiring is a person have a face and were born.
The state should make it very clear what they require so people will come prepared. $28 for a birth certificate sounds like robbery, though.
It’s getting to the point where even dead people will be denied the right to vote.
Precisely, GF.
Every one of these folks uses ID every day for other things. They know how to find the SS office, the Welfare Office, the Food Stamp office, etc.
They fill out paperwork after paperwork. They bring in bills, family addresses, photos, etc., to prove who they are to collect a host of government help.
They send their kids to school, they belong to clubs and churches, they pay rent, they order mail-order supplies, they sign up for cable or dish TV, they get car insurance, they get licenses, they get a gazillion offers over the telephone.
But, they can’t be counted on to get a photo ID in order to vote.
The author of this article is nothing more than a partisan liberal who’s hacked that his hopes for illegal voting are dashed.
They send their kids to school, they belong to clubs and churches, they pay rent, they order mail-order supplies, they sign up for cable or dish TV, they get car insurance, they get licenses, they get a gazillion offers over the telephone.
But, they cant be counted on to get a photo ID in order to vote.(?)
Bingo
So she mailed an application to Massachusetts, where she was born (cost: $28). She returned to the BMV, only to be told that her birth certificate had her maiden name, not her married name. She had to get a certified copy of her marriage certificate and return a fourth time.
If Theresa Clemente wanted to save herself a lot of hassle, she could have gone to the BMV website or called them direct and determined in advance exactly what documentation she would need, and brought it with her the first time. It is her own fault it took four trips. The rules are pretty clear cut.
The law also places burdens on voters ages 18 to 25. Many have recently moved to Indiana for college and either do not have a driver's license or have one from their parents' home state. At Indiana University alone, 14,000 students come from other states. Indiana makes it very difficult for these new residents, who should be able to vote at the polls where they live and where local laws affect them. The state doesn't allow voters to show student IDs, or other common forms of ID.
Berkeley, California, that bastion of progressivism and activism, is always very careful to schedule local primaries for the Summer months, when most students are away...
Students should run down to the DMV the first week of school and transfer their DL to their school address. It is silly to keep a DL from someplace where you don't live, and it can only lead to problems.
I support ID at the polls. It seems like on busy days fraud could rear it's ugly head.
In the four times I have worked, we have had 30-70% turnout. We're told no ID required. We've had no problem. People come in and say their names. The system is that if there is a duplicate we would have a problem, because the previous person could be the fraud. So ID could prevent that, even though I haven't seen it.
If the person is not on the list, we can let them vote provisional and we do check ID because the registrar has to confirm the vote in the next 2-3 days. We have 6-20 of those on a given day. Some are registered at other polls and they just came into the wrong place.
The issue about constitutionality is a ridiculous one. How could we have a system where we let you vote and don't know if you were supposed to. That position is ridiculous and the court did the right thing, no matter how many problems there are.
only a lying, cheating democrat would fear proper ID to vote.....because they can’t win a fair election.......the beast went to NY where her party could make sure she won.....
To piggyback on your point, all of those things you mentioned - beer, liquor, cigarettes, and guns - all cost more than the cost of an ID - drivers' license, et. al.
Sorry, editor, I think this is a great ruling.
Even dead veterans!
who can’t get a picture ID.....dead people
” She returned to the BMV, only to be told that her birth certificate had her maiden name, not her married name.”
I believe this writer to be a liar and a fabricator of the first order...
How in h*ll do you get your “married” name on your BIRTH certificate?????? You have an “arranged” marriage from birth???*ROFLMAO*
Complete claptrap! In order for the record to show fraud the people involved would have to be making an effort to expose the fraud, which they have not been doing because they want these people to vote because they are voting for them. Does anyone on this forum or anywhere else seriously believe illegals are not voting in elections now?
It's possible, but it would be the rare person who could (would) do it. I guess if they want to vote bad enough, they'll get a photo ID. (For example, why didn't this woman call first to see what would be required to get the photo ID?)
This editorial tries to claim these problems would be widespread, and that's just a fantasy.
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.