Supreme Court upholds voter ID

[apdst]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042800968.html?nav=rss_nation


By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 28, 2008; 12:38 PM

The Supreme Court ruled today that states may require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, upholding a Republican-backed measure that proponents say combats voter fraud and opponents believe discourages voter participation.

The court ruled 6-3 that the requirements enacted by Indiana's legislature were not enough of a burden to invoke constitutional protections. Because the state's law is generally regarded as the nation's strictest, the ruling bodes well for other states that have required photo ID.

"The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Three conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- agreed with the outcome but would have made it even more difficult for voters in states with photo-identification laws to challenge them.

Three liberal justices -- David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- dissented.

The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was the most sharply partisan case the court has considered since its ruling in Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election.

States with Republican-majority legislatures are pushing similar laws, saying they are a necessary and common-sense way to combat voter fraud and are widely supported by the public.

Democrats say the laws do not address the most prevalent forms of fraud, such as absentee ballots, but discourage or even disenfranchise people least likely to have driver's licenses or passports: the poor, elderly, disabled and urban dwellers -- who are most likely to vote Democratic.

When the law was upheld by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, the dissenting Democratic-appointed judge called it a "not-too-thinly veiled attempt" to discourage voters who skew Democratic.

Stevens noted that it was "fair" to infer that "partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in Indiana's decision to pass the law.

"But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators," he wrote.

Part of the problem for those who asked the court to strike the entire law -- the Democratic Party of Indiana and numerous civil rights groups -- was that they had trouble identifying specific voters whose ballots were not counted because of it. The law has been in effect since its passage in 2005 and will be used in next week's presidential primary.

The court was asked, Stevens wrote, to perform a "unique balancing analysis" between a small number of voters who might experience a special burden under the law and "the state's broad interests in protecting election integrity." Stevens said the thin record in the case did not prove the requirements were excessively burdensome.

The dissenters disagreed.

"Indiana's 'Voter ID Law' threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the state's citizens and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting," Souter wrote.

More than 20 states, including Virginia, have some form of identification requirement, although none as restrictive as Indiana's.

[Phyxius]

Personally, I have no problem with having to present ID to vote...

[Elrathin]

I have a problem with this, but not for the reasons some may think. I have a problem with it only in the cases where states require people to pay for their IDs. If they are going to require them for voting purposes, then they should provide them to the voters free of charge.

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that you are required to pay for something before you are able to vote. That is the only problem I have with this.

[preservanation]

This is HUGE!
It will decrease voted fraud.
No wonder the Dems opposed it.
Way to go Supremes!
6-3, not too shabby!

[apdst]

If they are going to require them for voting purposes, then they should provide them to the voters free of charge.

I agree, to an extent, but it's only ten bucks.

[Elrathin]

I agree, to an extent, but it's only ten bucks.

That's a lot of money to a homeless or a very poor person. And whether people realize it or not, they have just as much a right to vote as any other.

Also given our constitution doesn't state that it requires a fee to vote, the states should provide it. It can be a simple cheap plastic voter ID card or something simple. I mean when I register to vote they send me a cheap paper card with all my voting information on it for free, a voter ID card instead can be done.

Other than that I am behind this ruling as it would cut down Voter fraud.

[apdst]

That's a lot of money to a homeless or a very poor person. And whether people realize it or not, they have just as much a right to vote as any other.

I'm quite sure that they will be free to those who claim that they can't afford them.

[Elrathin]

I'm quite sure that they will be free to those who claim that they can't afford them.

Like I said, that is really my only concern. As long as states do that (which would be in their best interest to) this is a good ruling IMO.

[PostmodernProphet]

I have a problem with this, but not for the reasons some may think. I have a problem with it only in the cases where states require people to pay for their IDs. If they are going to require them for voting purposes, then they should provide them to the voters free of charge.

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that you are required to pay for something before you are able to vote. That is the only problem I have with this.

no problem.....we can let the DNC offer to buy ID cards for homeless people who promise to register as Democrats......:nana:

[potter]

This is HUGE!
It will decrease voted fraud.
No wonder the Dems opposed it.
Way to go Supremes!
6-3, not too shabby!

There has never been a case of voter fraud in indiana, so they "cured" a problem that didn't exist. The sole purpose of this bill is to make it harder for the elderly and poor to vote, a largely democratic block.

Why don't the republicans go after no verify voting machines that can easily be rigged? There is more evidence of fraud there than what this bill feigns to cure.

The goal wasn't to stop voter fraud, the goal was to disenfranhise voters. Just like caging et al.

Why do republicans hate our "democracy"?

[PostmodernProphet]

Why don't the republicans go after no verify voting machines that can easily be rigged? There is more evidence of fraud there than what this bill feigns to cure.



really?.....I don't recall a single case where it has been shown there was actual fraud in an election because of a voting machine.....perhaps you can refresh my memory.....

no verify voting machines

I am curious why you are worried about verifying the vote, but not worried about verifying the voter.......

[BoogyMan]

There has never been a case of voter fraud in indiana, so they "cured" a problem that didn't exist. The sole purpose of this bill is to make it harder for the elderly and poor to vote, a largely democratic block.

Why don't the republicans go after no verify voting machines that can easily be rigged? There is more evidence of fraud there than what this bill feigns to cure.

The goal wasn't to stop voter fraud, the goal was to disenfranhise voters. Just like caging et al.

Why do republicans hate our "democracy"?

I would certainly appreciate seeing you prove that the intent of a voter ID card is to "disenfranchise" voters. I have heard this from many people over the years and yet no-one, not a single person, has substantiated the claim. It seems that you wish to assert intent that cannot be proven.

[apdst]

why you are worried about verifying the vote, but not worried about verifying the voter

Because it would uncover all those illegal aliens that are going to be voting for the Demcorats.

[AlanC]

That's a lot of money to a homeless or a very poor person. And whether people realize it or not, they have just as much a right to vote as any other.

Also given our constitution doesn't state that it requires a fee to vote, the states should provide it. It can be a simple cheap plastic voter ID card or something simple. I mean when I register to vote they send me a cheap paper card with all my voting information on it for free, a voter ID card instead can be done.

Other than that I am behind this ruling as it would cut down Voter fraud.

The constitution only says one thing about voting. Its pretty much up to the states to set their own rules. But in the case before the court, the state ID is free.

In other states that have ID requirements to vote their are options to having a Government ID, like utility bills showing their registered address.

I think this was a very important and landmark decision that will go along way towards helping eliminate voter fraud.

[firefox]

This is HUGE!
It will decrease voted fraud.
No wonder the Dems opposed it.
Way to go Supremes!
6-3, not too shabby!

Yeah, because no one has a fake ID right? My issue with this ruling is not this particular instance per se (though it is dubious), but simply that it's just one more precedent for various governments, primarily the feds, to demand ID for more and more things, meaning that they will have the ability to say who can do what and when even more than they already do.

National IDs were required in Rwanda and look what happened there...

[Grizz]

I have a problem with this, but not for the reasons some may think. I have a problem with it only in the cases where states require people to pay for their IDs. If they are going to require them for voting purposes, then they should provide them to the voters free of charge.

Nowhere in the constitution does it state that you are required to pay for something before you are able to vote. That is the only problem I have with this.

There may be no charge for the voter ID card (flatly illegal), but what about the cost of obtaining an original document (like a birth certificate) to obtain said ID card? Somehow, the court seemed to overlook this little part.

[PostmodernProphet]

National IDs were required in Rwanda and look what happened there...what an interesting comment.....is it your position that the slaughter in Rwanda was CAUSED by national ID cards, or is it just that national ID cards enabled those responsible for the slaughter to identify the people they wanted to kill?...........or is it possible you had no point at all.........

[preservanation]

Am I do believe that there is a significant portion of the (legal) population wandering around out there with no form of personal ID?
If there are, which I find dubious, the states and even a political party (guess which one) has offered to provide them at little or no charge.
Furthermore, of course there's not a big data base of voter fraud in Indiana...when you don't have to prove who you are, how is one to be detected for not being who they are, or for voting multiple times??? This is silly.
It's like a state claiming that the have very few DUIs...but the police are not permitted to conduct a field sobriety test or administer a breathalyzer.

I can't believe that people are against voters to be who they say they are.
This seems that people want voter fraud...nah, that can't be can it?

[apdst]

National IDs were required in Rwanda and look what happened there...

Private gun ownership was illegal in Rwanda, too.

[Buck Laser]

I agree, to an extent, but it's only ten bucks.
The supreme court ruled that a poll tax was unconstitutional back in 1964. Do you want to bring it back?

[potter]

I would certainly appreciate seeing you prove that the intent of a voter ID card is to "disenfranchise" voters. I have heard this from many people over the years and yet no-one, not a single person, has substantiated the claim. It seems that you wish to assert intent that cannot be proven.


What other reason could there be, since there has never been a case of voter fraud?

Now, as some of you like to claim, there has never been any "proven" instances of vote manipulation with the electronic machines, why don't they also "fix" this too?

I think if you google Diebold machine fraud, manipulation, etc...you will find many questions about the security of these machines and how they can be easily manipulated. Why don't the republicans or democrats do anything about that?

[AlanC]

The supreme court ruled that a poll tax was unconstitutional back in 1964. Do you want to bring it back?


This is no tax. It is simply requireing someone to verify that they are who they say they are and that they are eligible to vote.

Without it, anyone could use your name to register at 10 different addresses and vote at each of them. What would be there to stop that? It would seem that the Supreme Court sees the state's interest in being able to ensure that no one is able to use the old Democrat advice to vote early and vote often.

[potter]

Without it, anyone could use your name to register at 10 different addresses and vote at each of them. .

But this is something only a republican would do. Seems like they are kinda shooting themselves in the foot here.

[AlanC]

But this is something only a republican would do. Seems like they are kinda shooting themselves in the foot here.

Then you should be happy and applaud the decision. Must be a good day for you.

[Easy90]

There has never been a case of voter fraud in indiana. Potter

That is truly a funny statement. Simply amazing! LOL! Thanks for today's laugh!

[Buck Laser]

This is no tax. It is simply requireing someone to verify that they are who they say they are and that they are eligible to vote.

Without it, anyone could use your name to register at 10 different addresses and vote at each of them. What would be there to stop that? It would seem that the Supreme Court sees the state's interest in being able to ensure that no one is able to use the old Democrat advice to vote early and vote often.
I think it's revealing that the minority report noted that there was NO evidence of voter fraud due to current voter ID practices.

This strikes me as just another republican scheme to reduce the number of voters. Isn't it interesting that they always seem to come out for ideas that will reduce the number of voters?

[Osborn F. Enready]

blah blah blah damn republicans....


blah blah blah damn democrats......


Man, some of you are hopelessly partisan....

[PostmodernProphet]

Why don't the republicans or democrats do anything about that?

/shrugs....what do you want done.....counties can buy any type of voting system they want....if they don't like Diebold machines, they can buy something else......nobody is making anyone use anything......

[PostmodernProphet]

I think it's revealing that the minority report noted that there was NO evidence of voter fraud due to current voter ID practices.

This strikes me as just another republican scheme to reduce the number of voters. Isn't it interesting that they always seem to come out for ideas that will reduce the number of voters?

its true, of course....we discovered that only liberals wouldn't be able to figure out how to get an ID....and we don't want liberals to be able to vote......

[Buck Laser]

This is no tax. It is simply requireing someone to verify that they are who they say they are and that they are eligible to vote.

Without it, anyone could use your name to register at 10 different addresses and vote at each of them. What would be there to stop that? It would seem that the Supreme Court sees the state's interest in being able to ensure that no one is able to use the old Democrat advice to vote early and vote often.
Two things: If the gummint requires you to pay it, it's a tax. Second, who's been been voting multiple times?

[PostmodernProphet]

Two things: If the gummint requires you to pay it, it's a tax. Second, who's been been voting multiple times?

who do you think cast those dead guy votes in Chicago?......some guy who didn't vote in his own name so he could vote in the dead guy's name?........

[4Reaganomics]

Wright probably has everybody at Trinity United going out quite a few times under dead men's names to get the aids injecting government out of office.

[Buck Laser]

Wright probably has everybody at Trinity United going out quite a few times under dead men's names to get the aids injecting government out of office.
That was 48 years ago, bubba.