Supreme Court Upholds Indiana's Voter ID Law

[babylonsister]

Court Upholds Voter ID Law
By Paul Kiel - April 28, 2008, 10:13AM


Finally, the country will be rescued from its long nightmare struggle with voter fraud! And if certain voters find it harder to get their ballot cast, then so be it.

From the AP:

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

The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

As those who have followed this issue will remember, this is not a surprise. As Jeffrey Toobin put it early this year:

As a general matter, in recent years the Court has been reluctant to find what is charged in this case: a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. (The notable exception, to belabor the issue, was for a plaintiff named George W. Bush.) In the end, though, it will not be the judiciary that rescues democracy; whatever the obstacles, the problems with the ballot box must be solved at the ballot box.

more...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/court_upholds_voter_id_law.php

[jasmine621]

1. This makes me nervous. I still see the need for verifiable ID to vote.

I hopw there is registration help out there for the elderly and others who need it get proper ID.

[babylonsister]

2. This not only makes me nervous, it's very partisan and will

disenfranchise voters, which I think was the intent. I remember I used to respect the Supreme Court. No longer...

[mvccd1000]

3. The law would disenfranchise....

According to the article, "Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots."

I disagree with at least two of those classifications. The elderly are more likely than anyone else to still prefer paper checks from social security, pension, etc., which means they HAVE to have ID to cash the checks. Neither my 96-year-old great aunt nor my 91-year-old grandfather will have anything to do with direct deposit. They want the check in hand and they want to go to the bank to deposit it. They make sure they have valid IDs.

The poor are more likely to use services such as WIC, payday loans, or check cashing stores. Honestly, I would think the poor and the elderly would be more likely than the rest of us to have ID. I can think of periods of entire years where I've never pulled out my driver's license, but I've sure enough seen my grandpa's when I took him to deposit his checks.

I don't know that "minorities" is a group you can classify as more or less likely to be disenfranchised by such a requirement - there is simply to great a variety of minorities. Poor or elderly minorities probably fall into the same categories as any other poor or elderly, as far as ID is concerned.

[Breeze54]

6. "All documents must be in English, and in your name."

Identification Cards

How to Apply

http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php

If you use documents from the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration/Naturalization Service, or Citizenship and
Immigration Service, they will need to be approved by the Central Verification Process before a state ID card will be issued.

You'll need to provide one document each from the primary, secondary, and proof of residency groups.

Or, you can show two documents from the primary group and one from the proof of residency group.

But we WILL accept your VOTER ID CARD as proof of Indiana Residency!! :crazy:

[B Calm]

4. I think it's more important to stop Indiana republicans voting for Hillary

with the sole intentions of screwing up the democratic ticket. I have several RW coworkers who plan to do just that. They want Hillary because they think John W McCain can beat her, and they probably right!

[L. Coyote]

5. Okay, now we need to register another million voters. No problem.

That has already happened in just a few primary states. LOL!!

Those five Supreme votes won't meam shit when the People's votes are counted in 2008!!

[babylonsister]

7. SC ruling roadblock to democracy

SC ruling roadblock to democracy
Posted April 28, 2008 3:28 PM
The Swamp

by Matthew Hay Brown



Congressional Democrats are ripping into the Supreme Court ruling today that upheld Indiana's requirement that voters show identification before they may cast their ballots.

"The Court's decision today places obstacles to the fundamental rights of American citizens - especially the poor, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities - to participate in the electoral process," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "Requiring American citizens pay for underlying documents needed for an identification card and travel to distant motor vehicle locations for processing hinders - and diminishes - their right to vote."

A week before the Indiana primary, the court decided 6-3 to uphold a law the state said was necessary to prevent voter fraud. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called such requirements "roadblocks to democracy."

"The fact that every Republican in the Indiana General Assembly supported this law and every Democrat opposed it speaks volumes about the improper partisan motives behind the photo-ID movement," he said.

Indeed, that divide is mirrored at the federal level: House Republican Leader John Boehner praised the court decision.

more...

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/reid_sc_ruling_roadblock_to_de.html