Supreme Court rules that Indiana is allowed to require voters to produce photo ID

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

...

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

...

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_...scotus_voter_id

[Sister Fracas 5]

sounds fair to me...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

sounds fair to me...

to me too. i wonder why this had to end up in court at all...

[Ban Hammer 13,353]

sounds fair to me...

to me too. i wonder why this had to end up in court at all...

ditto. i can't see what the big deal is all about.

[GaryC 7]

sounds fair to me...

to me too. i wonder why this had to end up in court at all...

Because the dems want the dead, felons and illegals to be able to vote. It's ruining their base.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Finally, the Numbers...

Josh Marshall

In our coverage of the US Attorney Purge story a major issue looming in the background was the Republican party's effort to reduce minority voting. And a key way of doing that was to get states to pass (and the gutted Voting section at DOJ to approve) so-called voter ID laws to crack down on vote fraud for which there was in fact no evidence.

The truth is that if you're an educated and reasonably well-off person who has time free to read about politics during the day at TPM you very likely have one or more pieces of ID, in all likelihood a drivers' license. But among minorities, low-income voters, the young and the old that's often not the case. And those who don't have acceptable voter IDs are disproportionately Democrats.

Remember, the point of voter ID laws is not to eliminate fraud it is to eliminate Democratic voters. So if your voter ID law disenfranchises 10% of voters and 80% of those are Democrats you've just handed yourself several percentage points that can win you a bunch of close elections -- it's certainly easier than winning them the old fashioned way.

In any case, I return to this topic because one of these laws has been enacted in Indiana. And the Brennan Center and others have filed an amicus brief with a new quantitative study which finally puts real numbers on how many people will effectively lose their right to vote.

I'm quoting here from the press release on some of the study's key findings ....

# 21.8% of black Indiana voters do not have access to a valid photo ID (compared to 15.8% of white Indiana voters - a 6 point gap).

# When non-registered eligible voter responses are included - the gap widens. 28.3% of eligible black voters in the State of Indiana to not have valid photo ID (compared to 16.8% of eligible voting age white Indiana residents - a gap of 11.5 percent).

# The study found what it termed "a curvilinear pattern (similar to an upside down U-curve)" in the relationship between age and access to valid ID - younger voters and older voters were both less likely to have valid ID compared to voters in the middle categories. 22% of voters 18-34 did not have ID, nor did 19.4% over the age of 70. (compared to 16.2% of Indiana voters age 35-54 without valid ID and 14.1% for 55-69 year olds).

# 21% of Indiana registered voters with only a high school diploma did not have valid ID (compared to 11.5% of Indiana voters who have completed college - a gap of 9.5%).

# Those with valid ID are much more likely to be Republicans than those who do not have valid ID. Among registered voters with proper ID, 41.6% are registered Republicans, 32.5% are Democrats.

The study puts in a very stark relief what the Republican effort to keep minority and low-income voters from the polls is really about. And the Supreme Court will soon sign off on whether this is permitted -- a decision that will have a huge effect on voting rights in this country for years to come. Please take a moment to check out the press release and find out more.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/058739.php

[Dan J 277]

This is not a bad thing in essence. But the problem is that not everyone has Photo ID's. A photo ID is not required to be a resident of the state of Indiana.

If they want to require a photo ID to vote, then its simple, provide free photo IDs to all residents of the state.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is not a bad thing in essence. But the problem is that not everyone has Photo ID's. A photo ID is not required to be a resident of the state of Indiana.

If they want to require a photo ID to vote, then its simple, provide free photo IDs to all residents of the state.

[Amby 490]

you can get a free ID card but you have to sit around and wait 30-45 minutes a lot of the time to get one

[GaryC 7]

Finally, the Numbers...

Josh Marshall

In our coverage of the US Attorney Purge story a major issue looming in the background was the Republican party's effort to reduce minority voting. And a key way of doing that was to get states to pass (and the gutted Voting section at DOJ to approve) so-called voter ID laws to crack down on vote fraud for which there was in fact no evidence.

The truth is that if you're an educated and reasonably well-off person who has time free to read about politics during the day at TPM you very likely have one or more pieces of ID, in all likelihood a drivers' license. But among minorities, low-income voters, the young and the old that's often not the case. And those who don't have acceptable voter IDs are disproportionately Democrats.

Remember, the point of voter ID laws is not to eliminate fraud it is to eliminate Democratic voters. So if your voter ID law disenfranchises 10% of voters and 80% of those are Democrats you've just handed yourself several percentage points that can win you a bunch of close elections -- it's certainly easier than winning them the old fashioned way.

In any case, I return to this topic because one of these laws has been enacted in Indiana. And the Brennan Center and others have filed an amicus brief with a new quantitative study which finally puts real numbers on how many people will effectively lose their right to vote.

I'm quoting here from the press release on some of the study's key findings ....

# 21.8% of black Indiana voters do not have access to a valid photo ID (compared to 15.8% of white Indiana voters - a 6 point gap).

# When non-registered eligible voter responses are included - the gap widens. 28.3% of eligible black voters in the State of Indiana to not have valid photo ID (compared to 16.8% of eligible voting age white Indiana residents - a gap of 11.5 percent).

# The study found what it termed "a curvilinear pattern (similar to an upside down U-curve)" in the relationship between age and access to valid ID - younger voters and older voters were both less likely to have valid ID compared to voters in the middle categories. 22% of voters 18-34 did not have ID, nor did 19.4% over the age of 70. (compared to 16.2% of Indiana voters age 35-54 without valid ID and 14.1% for 55-69 year olds).

# 21% of Indiana registered voters with only a high school diploma did not have valid ID (compared to 11.5% of Indiana voters who have completed college - a gap of 9.5%).

# Those with valid ID are much more likely to be Republicans than those who do not have valid ID. Among registered voters with proper ID, 41.6% are registered Republicans, 32.5% are Democrats.

The study puts in a very stark relief what the Republican effort to keep minority and low-income voters from the polls is really about. And the Supreme Court will soon sign off on whether this is permitted -- a decision that will have a huge effect on voting rights in this country for years to come. Please take a moment to check out the press release and find out more.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/058739.php

Yet more "vast right wing conspiracy"? Yep, those mean old republicans want to hold down the little guy. Your daily diatribes are getting old and do not convince anyone Steven. What is wrong with wanting to know if the people that are voting are in fact eligeble to vote? You see conspiracy at every corner, I think thats called paranoia.

It seems all you read is left wing blogs and "news" sources. Lets look at this one:

Talking Points Memo (or TPM) is the name of a liberal political blog created and run by Josh Marshall. It debuted on November 12, 2000. It covers a wide range of topics including U.S. foreign policy, domestic politics (especially at the federal level) and domestic policy.

[edit] History

During George W. Bush's first term the blog frequently discussed foreign policy and was especially critical of administration policy towards Iraq and North Korea. After the 2004 election, posts began to focus on the Bush administration's proposal to privatize Social Security. In addition to criticizing the substance of the proposals, Marshall argued that a unified front in the Democratic Party would deny Republicans political cover and force a loss for them on the Social Security issue.

A screenshot of TPM's old formatTalking Points Memo closely tracked the positions of members of Congress on the issue throughout 2005. It asked readers to monitor local media for comments from their own members of congress, and public categories were created for politicians on this issue: wavering Democrats were the "Faint-hearted Faction" and Republicans who doubted the President's plan were the "Conscience Caucus." Marshall also coined the term "Bamboozlepalooza", in reference to President Bush's 60-day (it was extended) tour promoting social security privatization. These terms have since gained use amongst the wider liberal blogging community. Other terms that Marshall has coined while criticizing the Bush administration include "Up-is-downism" and "Mumbojumbocrats."

Guest bloggers have included Matthew Yglesias, Michael Crowley, and, briefly, Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards. Beginning in the summer of 2006, a significant amount of weekend postings were provided by anonymous blogger DK. On November 11, 2006, DK's identity was revealed to be that of lawyer David Kurtz, who now openly posts under his name. The blog also employs a managing editor and two interns.

On July 10th, 2007, the site had a major overhaul, adding much more content from its related sites to the main page. It is part of the effort to have more original reporting on the website.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_Points_Memo

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Lets implant a microchip in everyone and then they can be scanned before voting. If they are allowed to vote it will count, if not then it won't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Speaking of conspiracies, Gary, where's the proof that people without state ID's are committing voter fraud? There isn't any.

Anyone who votes knows that you have to go to specific polling place you are assigned to. Your name and address are on a list. The workers ask you for you name and address. If by chance someone else came to your polling place before you and said they were you, they would be caught. There is no other precautions needed to discourage people from voting as somebody other than themselves. Secondly, state ID's can be and have been made counterfeit. In other words, there is no full proof method...it's a matter of taking reasonable precautions.

[mawilson 2,133]

sounds fair to me...

to me too. i wonder why this had to end up in court at all...

Because the dems want the dead, felons and illegals to be able to vote. It's ruining their base.

[GaryC 7]

Speaking of conspiracies, Gary, where's the proof that people without state ID's are committing voter fraud? There isn't any.

Anyone who votes knows that you have to go to specific polling place you are assigned to. Your name and address are on a list. The workers ask you for you name and address. If by chance someone else came to your polling place before you and said they were you, they would be caught. There is no other precautions needed to discourage people from voting as somebody other than themselves. Secondly, state ID's can be and have been made counterfeit. In other words, there is no full proof method...it's a matter of taking reasonable precautions.

Ah right, no such thing as voter fraud. Lets just trust everyone. Alternativly there is nothing we can do to stop it so why try? Nice.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Speaking of conspiracies, Gary, where's the proof that people without state ID's are committing voter fraud? There isn't any.

Anyone who votes knows that you have to go to specific polling place you are assigned to. Your name and address are on a list. The workers ask you for you name and address. If by chance someone else came to your polling place before you and said they were you, they would be caught. There is no other precautions needed to discourage people from voting as somebody other than themselves. Secondly, state ID's can be and have been made counterfeit. In other words, there is no full proof method...it's a matter of taking reasonable precautions.

Ah right, no such thing as voter fraud. Lets just trust everyone. Alternativly there is nothing we can do to stop it so why try? Nice.

Voter fraud by way of no ID. Where's proof this is happening? You won't find any....and for the reasons I just mentioned.

EDIT: What do you say to those who've lost their wallet/ID days before an election? SOL....a true celebration of democracy.

Edited April 28, 2008 by Jabberwocky