UPDATE: Please cast a vote in the new CD Poll in the sidebar regarding voter ID laws.
In a 6 – 3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the state of Indiana’s tough voter-identification law which requires voters to show a picture ID before casting their ballot:
WASHINGTON — By a 6-3 vote in a closely watched election-year case, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld Indiana’s strict voter-identification law, rejecting the claims of Democratic and civil-rights challengers that the law infringes on the right to vote.
The decision by Justice John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal members of the court, emphasized that the challengers had not presented sufficient evidence that voters were kept from the polls or otherwise hurt by the law Indiana says prevents fraud.
…
Indiana’s statute, adopted in 2005, bars people from casting a ballot unless they present certain photo identification issued by the state or federal government, such as a driver’s license or passport. If a person does not have such an ID, he or she can get an alternative but generally needs a birth certificate to proceed.
The Indiana Democratic Party and other groups brought a broad-based challenge to the law, saying it infringed the right to vote under the 14th Amendment. They emphasized the difficulty of obtaining the required documentation, particularly for poor, elderly, disabled, and minority voters.
They said that the state’s interest in-person fraud at the polls — the specific type of problem at issue in the case — could not justify the hurdles to voters who cannot easily obtain the proper documentation, such as a birth certificate.
Yet, Stevens noted that the challengers did not bring in evidence from particular individuals. “On the basis of the evidence in the record,” he wrote, “it is not possible to quantify either the magnitude of the burden on … voters.” He said the record lacks even the number of registered voters without photo identification.
Conservatives have been advocating these types of laws for years as a common-sense measure to prevent voter fraud at the polls. Democrats have always opposed these laws because they say that minority and elderly voters would have too many problems trying to obtain the needed photo identification card. However, it turns out that the challengers to this law failed to provide evidence that the law would actually cause insurmountable problems for these people. In fact, the challengers’ case was so weak that you have the most liberal member of the Supreme Court writing the majority opinion on this case.
This ruling should clear the way for a similar law here in Texas, which I hope the State Legislature will pass the next time they are in session. It simply amazes me that people actually have a problem with this law; you’d think that preventing fraudulent votes from being cast would be something both parties could support. Yet, the Democrats oppose it.
Things that make you go hmmmmmm.
April 29th, 2008 at 9:29 am
OK, Nick. How about if they combine the voter ID law with a gun registration law. The new law will require photo IDs for people who want to own guns as well as for those who want to vote. Fair deal? Or are you going to tell me that owning a gun is a Constitutional right that can’t be infringed, unlike, say, voting?
Then the next thing we can do is put in an intelligence test for anyone that wants to own a gun. They will have to pass a multiple choice exam along the same lines as the TAAS exit exam for high school seniors.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Mike, I have no problem with a person being asked to prove he is a legal citizen before he is allowed to exercise his rights under the Constitution. Especially with something as important as the right to vote. I also have no problem with a person having to show identification when he is making a gun purchase.
Please explain how proving citizenship is an infringement on the right to vote. Given the fact that this right is only allowed to legal citizens, I see nothing wrong with ensuring that the people who show up at the polls are, in fact, citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that we have to assume someone is a citizen just because they say they are.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I don’t mean just show an ID to buy a gun. I mean you have to register to own a gun and have a photo ID issued. We already have to register to vote. The only issue beyond that is to demonstrate that you are the person registered when you vote. That is typically done by showing your voter ID card. Why do you have to show a photo ID on top of that? I have shown my driver’s license to vote when I have forgotten or misplaced my voter registration card. Why should I have to show both? Some people, for whatever reason, don’t have driver’s licenses – some because they are too old to drive or maybe they are too poor to own a car. Forcing them to get a government issued photo ID (and paying the subsequent fees) on top of registering to vote (which already covers your paranoia over citizenship) is an unneccesary burden for voting. The Supreme Court was totally wrong in this case and I’m sure it is just a matter of time before enough examples will be compiled to satisfy Justice Stevens complaint about the lack thereof in the initial complaint.
April 29th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
In theory, using your government-issued photo ID could replace voter registration cards. So, once implemented, you wouldn’t need to show both.
Next, the ID doesn’t have to be a driver’s license; States issue plain ID cards all the time. In fact, when the voter ID law was proposed the last time, it offered to issue the id cards at no charge for those who couldn’t afford the small fee they collect for it.
So, getting the ID costs nothing, and once we start you only have to show the ID. Frankly, I don’t see where there is a “burden” for anyone.
As for this “evidence” you say will “eventually” show up, get real. The people in this case had over a year to find such evidence and couldn’t find any (or any credible enough to bring to the Court’s attention). This “burden” you talk about seems to be imaginary.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“They emphasized the difficulty of obtaining the required documentation, particularly for poor, elderly, disabled, and minority voters.”
Oh, so that’s why they passed laws that such people must show picture IDs to drink alcohol, smoke or chew tobacco, cash a check or open a bank account – and have proposed it (in light of “huffing” fumes) for buying housepaint! I’d wondered why, at over sixty, I had to provide proof beyond my rather decrepit appearance that I was beyond 21.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Congratulations to the Supreme Court and Indiana’s Voter ID law for preventing a dozen 80 and 90-year-old nuns from voting in the May 6 primary. Click Here.
Comment edited by Administrator to prevent link from extending into sidebar.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:11 am
To ensure that the voter is really a citizen of a certain place, why don’t they let the voter show their birth certificate or before given a voter’s ID, the election committee would examine the birth certificate first.
_________________
mai
New York Immigration Lawyer Marina Shepelsky, located in Brooklyn, assists clients from the New York metro area and across the United States in all immigration and naturalization matters http://www.e-us-visa.com
May 8th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Gee, the nun was 93 years old and apparently has no time to obtain a free state-issued photo ID. Yet, she has time on election day to go to the voting booth even though she knew she wouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Seems to me that one additional trip a couple of months ago could have taken care of the entire situation, especially given all the publicity that the Supreme Court case generated.