Steny Hoyer and Chris Dodd: Indiana voters shut out for no rational reason

[babylonsister]

Indiana voters shut out for no rational reason

By Steny Hoyer and Chris Dodd
May 13, 2008



By now, we're used to it. Sending our receipts to the IRS. Making sure our sons register for the draft. And these days, even taking off our shoes at the airport. But every time Americans accept limits on our liberties, we hold our government to this unspoken deal: "Just give us a good reason why."

What happens if there isn't one?

The Supreme Court has just decided to restrict our voting rights—and frankly, in pages and pages of opinions, we're having trouble seeing their good reason. By a 6-3 decision, the justices chose to uphold Indiana's voter ID law, the nation's harshest, leaving states free to turn away voters who can't present a driver's license or passport on demand at the polls.

That might not seem like a lot to ask, if you're not working two jobs, if you're not depending on public transportation, if you're not confined to a retirement home. Maybe you can make it to the secretary of state's office whenever you want.

But millions of Americans can't—Americans like the dozen nuns who were reportedly turned away from the voting booth in South Bend, Ind., last week. Because they don't drive, they didn't have licenses; and because they're in their 80s and 90s, few of them had the energy to go apply for one across town.

more...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0513votemay13,0,1591406.story

[Mountainman]

1. So what can they do about it?

[nashville_brook]

6. maybe we could write to Dodd and Hoyer and ask that question. i'd like to know as well.

obviously, an Executive Branch that ferrets out the vote suppression from the DOJ, would be a good start -- but how do we get that new Executive if we can't get the vote out for them?

[Doctor_J]

11. Start by firing, then prosecuting, the entire DoJ as soon as Obama

is sworn in. If all those involved in voter suppression, intimidation, and fraud are sentenced to significant terms in federal pound-me-in-ass prison, the deterrence will be quite formidable.

[aquart]

2. This Court is insane.

[The Blue Flower]

3. Not insane

PARTISAN

[spooky3]

8. This was a 6-3 vote, with Stevens, the most liberal justice, writing the lead opinion.

They were interpreting Indiana law. The way to change this situation is to get the Indiana (or other state with a similar law) to change the law.

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V128/N22/long1.html

This might also be of interest:

"Six states in addition to Indiana — Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota — now require voters to provide photo identification before casting a ballot. Bills are pending in two dozen other states, although they are not likely to pass this year in more than a handful, due to short legislative sessions and Democratic opposition.

The Indiana law, adopted by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2005 without a single Democratic vote, is regarded as the strictest in the country. It requires a voter to present a photograph as part of an unexpired document issued either by Indiana or the federal government, a requirement that in most cases can be satisfied only by a current driver’s license or a passport. The state’s motor vehicle agency provides a free photo ID card for people who do not drive, but obtaining it requires a “primary document” like an original birth certificate or a passport."

[OhioChick]

4. As the poster up-thread asked...

What can be done about it? We have to present an ID here too, now.

:kick:

[babylonsister]

5. I don't really know. Can rulings be overturned? nt

[formercia]

7. The Supreme Court can be impeached.

No one in this country is sacred or untouchable.

[babylonsister]

9. Doesn't a clean slate sound grand?!

I could google, but do you know if this has ever been attempted?

[formercia]

10. The John Birch Society tried to get Earl Warren Impeached.

He was too liberal for their taste.

It might be doable with a Democratic President and a solid majority in both houses.

[Doctor_J]

12. There is also something called "stacking the court" IIRC

there is nothing in the Constitution that says the SCOTUS should have 9 members. President Obama can appoint 2 extra justices, and the Senate can confirm them, and render the fascist portion irrelevant.

[OhioChick]

13. I Have Absolutely No Idea. n/t

[crimsonblue]

14. This is why Dodd was my first choice...

that and the PAA bullshit.