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

[GaryC 7]

There's this assumption that a state ID is somehow full proof from counterfeit or fraud and that's simply not the case. Heck, I remember back in Arizona, so many people would get fake ID's to buy alcohol who were under 21.

Fingerprints would be a hell of a lot cheaper and a hell of a lot more effective.

If someone is bent on commiting vote fraud, an ID wont stop them.

Thats a lame argument. Because it will not stop all fraud then you object to any attempt to stop it. To bad. It's the law now. And since the Indiana law is constitutional that means all other states laws that are like it will also be. It's a victory for our country. Oh, the congress cannot change the law as you stated before. This is a state law and congress cannot overturn it.

[HAL 9000 96]

Provide the IDs in a timely manner BEFORE the primary. End of story, everyone wins. Just try not to disenfranchise voters to influence the outcome of an election...

[GaryC 7]

Provide the IDs in a timely manner BEFORE the primary. End of story, everyone wins. Just try not to disenfranchise voters to influence the outcome of an election...

I am cool with that.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Fingerprints are better than a photo - I agree.

Agreed... All measures should be taken from an ID to fingerprints and a signature IMO... This is one of our citizens highest duties IMO and should be safegaurded from fraud (but again that's just my opinion).

Edited April 28, 2008 by Sheriff Uling

[kaydee457 13]

Hmm, you can't cash a $5 check without photo ID but you can vote in a national election without one.....

This is just wrong and I hope this ripples throughout the country.

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

Hmm, you can't cash a $5 check without photo ID but you can vote in a national election without one.....

This is just wrong and I hope this ripples throughout the country.

Voting is a constitutional right....check writing isn't.

[Ban Hammer 13,354]

Hmm, you can't cash a $5 check without photo ID but you can vote in a national election without one.....

This is just wrong and I hope this ripples throughout the country.

Voting is a constitutional right....check writing isn't.

just ask goose!

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

Hmm, you can't cash a $5 check without photo ID but you can vote in a national election without one.....

This is just wrong and I hope this ripples throughout the country.

Voting is a constitutional right....check writing isn't.

just ask goose!

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

I think the ruling is sound. It needs to be accompanied with a national ID so all voters have verifiable photo identification.

We have one, its called a passport

[kaydee457 13]

Hillary Clinton's been pushing a bill called the "count every vote act" that essentially allows any person, on election day, unregistered, without ID, to show up at the polling place and cast a ballot.......

She's been pushing this for a long time now. What this is in reality is a thin veiled attempt to give illegals the right to vote in State, as well as National Elections....

any vote

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Fingerprints are better than a photo - I agree.

Agreed... All measures should be taken from an ID to fingerprints and a signature IMO... This is one of our citizens highest duties IMO and should be safegaurded from fraud (but again that's just my opinion).

So now the volunteers at the polls will have to be document experts? Soon DHS will have to take voting over.

The only way to make it near error proof is biometric scan or microchip scan. Until this happens we will always have fake ID's and fake documents.

[kaydee457 13]

Hmm, you can't cash a $5 check without photo ID but you can vote in a national election without one.....

This is just wrong and I hope this ripples throughout the country.

Voting is a constitutional right....check writing isn't.

just ask goose!

Yes, it is for citizens and it's not unreasonable to verify that the person casting the ballot is the one that has that right!

[Gaby&Talbert 1]

Hillary Clinton's been pushing a bill called the "count every vote act" that essentially allows any person, on election day, unregistered, without ID, to show up at the polling place and cast a ballot.......

She's been pushing this for a long time now. What this is in reality is a thin veiled attempt to give illegals the right to vote in State, as well as National Elections....

any vote

Why is everything about the illegals? It is the poor and the uneducated that they want to get out and vote. These are the people that don't typically vote and would probably vote democratic if they would just vote.

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

Fingerprints are better than a photo - I agree.

Agreed... All measures should be taken from an ID to fingerprints and a signature IMO... This is one of our citizens highest duties IMO and should be safegaurded from fraud (but again that's just my opinion).

So now the volunteers at the polls will have to be document experts? Soon DHS will have to take voting over.

The only way to make it near error proof is biometric scan or microchip scan. Until this happens we will always have fake ID's and fake documents.

Exactly. Well said.

[GaryC 7]

Fingerprints are better than a photo - I agree.

Agreed... All measures should be taken from an ID to fingerprints and a signature IMO... This is one of our citizens highest duties IMO and should be safegaurded from fraud (but again that's just my opinion).

So now the volunteers at the polls will have to be document experts? Soon DHS will have to take voting over.

The only way to make it near error proof is biometric scan or microchip scan. Until this happens we will always have fake ID's and fake documents.

Exactly. Well said.

Just what do you object to here? Indiana will give the ID's for free. Anyone that doesn't have an ID can still cast a provisional vote and have 10 days to go in and present one. This was a 6-3 decision. It didn't fall on party lines. In short, it was a slam dunk.

Indiana has a "valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" said Justice John Paul Stevens in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Stevens said that Indiana's desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law was designed to combat. Evidence of voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements also is scant. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver's license serves as the identification.

The law does not apply to absentee balloting, where election experts agree the threat of fraud is higher.

The Indiana law was passed in 2005. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed it as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage groups of voters who tend to prefer Democrats.

It was in effect during the 2006 elections when Democrats picked up three congressional seats in Indiana and won control of the state House of Representatives.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome Monday, but wrote separately in favor of a broader defense of voter ID laws.

"The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,'" Scalia said.

...

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to people without driver's licenses. It also allows voters who lack photo ID's 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

Edited April 28, 2008 by GaryC