Supreme Court Upholds Voter I.D. Law

[BPSCG]

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.

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.

(...snip...)

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.

Link

Is proving you are who you say you are really a "nontrivial burden?" I suppose it could be difficult if you were subjected to CFLarsen standards of proof, but in the real world?

 

[Demigorgon]

Link

Is proving you are who you say you are really a "nontrivial burden?" I suppose it could be difficult if you were subjected to CFLarsen standards of proof, but in the real world?

It is if you're in the country illegally and trying to vote. And lets be honest that's what this is really about.

 

[Fnord]

I say that it's about time! If a voter ID law is in effect, no one could steal my vote. Otherwise, it would be like someone using my telephone to make crank calls -- something I definately don't want done under my name.

I have no reservations about showing my driver's license to the poll worker, as long as every voter is expected to do the same, regardless of age, income, English proficiency, immigration status, gender, skin color, et cetera.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Awaiting the rant of skeptigirl (who has gone on about this) in 5...4...3..

 

[Careyp74]

Not only did I show an ID, I signed a piece of paper, and then they verified that it was my signature, before being able to vote. I didn't think about it, and thought the measures were good. Why not spend the effort to get these people with bad IDs to get better IDs? "they had trouble identifying specific voters" Aren't the DMV's supposed to check that you can identify the person by the ID when they give them out?

 

[dudalb]

Sorry,but I don't think that showing your ID when you vote is unreasonable.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In Indiana it's also free to get an ID card (valid for 6 years) for voting purposes.

 

[Loss Leader]

It is if you're in the country illegally and trying to vote. And lets be honest that's what this is really about.

Please show evidence that there is any threat that illegal aliens arel trying to vote in any number great enough to disturb an election. Such a problem does not exist.

What this is "really" about has nothing to do with illegal aliens. This is really about driver's licenses. When Republicans talk about proof of ID, they are talking about the most common and most commonly accepted proof in the US - driver's licenses. And the people who are least likely to have driver's licenses are the poor who live in large cities with bussing. Those poor people just happen to be overwhelmingly comprised of minorities, especially African Americans. Even if they could get non-driver's IDs from the state's DMV, they generally have neither sufficient money nor interest.

What this is "really" about is making it as difficult as possible for the poor to vote (and to vote Democrat).

Perhaps a voter ID law is a good thing. Perhaps it is not an unreasonable burden compared to the integrity of the election system. But make no mistake, the intentions of the backers of this law were to decrease Democratic votes by any means other than actually convincing people to vote Republican.

The bottom line is, whatever justice may or may not require, Republican Supreme Court Justices nominated by Republican Presidents voted to uphold a law passed by Republicans. And that law helped decrease Republican opposition at the ballots.

 

[mumblethrax]

It is if you're in the country illegally and trying to vote. And lets be honest that's what this is really about.

You do realize that non-citizen legal residents can't vote either, right? What this is about (remember that these laws challenge the status quo) is presenting obstacles to a segment of the population that tends to vote against Republicans.

Sorry,but I don't think that showing your ID when you vote is unreasonable.

The problem lies in the assumption that a voter has photo ID to show in the first place. Doing so introduces a de facto requirement that citizens acquire ID before voting, which does amount to an unreasonable burden in my mind, particularly given that at least some voters will be deterred by these measures and the problem being addressed has not been shown to exist. This is what Souter was getting at with his dissenting opinion.

 

[Beerina]

The problem lies in the assumption that a voter has photo ID to show in the first place. Doing so introduces a de facto requirement that citizens acquire ID before voting, which does amount to an unreasonable burden in my mind, particularly given that at least some voters will be deterred by these measures and the problem being addressed has not been shown to exist. This is what Souter was getting at with his dissenting opinion.

One does like to see evidence of a problem before laws are passed to deal with it (or are claimed to deal with it. Follow up studies are also a good thing.)

 

[BPSCG]

Please show evidence that there is any threat that illegal aliens arel trying to vote in any number great enough to disturb an election. Such a problem does not exist.

Please refresh my memory; how many votes separated George Bush and Al Gore in Florida in 2000?

Even if they could get non-driver's IDs from the state's DMV, they generally have neither sufficient money nor interest.

Even if the state ID card could be provided free of charge? Even if a Democratic operative were willing to drive them to the DMV (or wherever) in a voter registration drive?

I suspect that the universe of people who are truly too poor to get any kind of ID is tiny. The elderly have Medicare cards (you have to provide proof of identity to get your Social Security and Medicare), the truly poor have Medicaid cards. There is only one class of people for whom getting proof of identity is a "nontrivial burden": illegals.

 

[Drudgewire]

There is only one class of people for whom getting proof of identity is a "nontrivial burden": illegals.

And dead people. What's to stop a felon who is not allowed to vote to go to the polling place and say he's his recently departed uncle?

 

[JoeEllison]

The best description of this law that I've read is "a solution in search of a problem." There's no issue of voter fraud anywhere in this country requiring this sort of law, although it sooths the minds of racists to know it exists. Too bad no one is interesting in dealing with election fraud... no way to blame that on Mexicans, I guess.

 

[JoeEllison]

Please show evidence that there is any threat that illegal aliens arel trying to vote in any number great enough to disturb an election. Such a problem does not exist.

What this is "really" about has nothing to do with illegal aliens. This is really about driver's licenses. When Republicans talk about proof of ID, they are talking about the most common and most commonly accepted proof in the US - driver's licenses. And the people who are least likely to have driver's licenses are the poor who live in large cities with bussing. Those poor people just happen to be overwhelmingly comprised of minorities, especially African Americans. Even if they could get non-driver's IDs from the state's DMV, they generally have neither sufficient money nor interest.

Which makes it a de facto poll tax, doesn't it?

 

[Loss Leader]

Please refresh my memory; how many votes separated George Bush and Al Gore in Florida in 2000?

Five. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Five. Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas.

Did they present their ID's though?

 

[Random]

Please refresh my memory; how many votes separated George Bush and Al Gore in Florida in 2000?

Less than the number of blacks wrongly removed from the voter rolls.

I suspect that the universe of people who are truly too poor to get any kind of ID is tiny. The elderly have Medicare cards (you have to provide proof of identity to get your Social Security and Medicare), the truly poor have Medicaid cards. There is only one class of people for whom getting proof of identity is a "nontrivial burden": illegals.

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Cards are not valid picture IDs, and cannot be used for voting under this law. People would be required to get some sort of Government issued picture ID, and unless these are available for free, it is a de facto poll tax.

But yeah, voter fraud is a huge problem. Why, since 2002, there have been almost fifty prosecutions for voter fraud nationwide in the US. Our election system is at the breaking point.

Seriously, give it a few minutes thought and you will realize how bone headed voter fraud accusations are.

You want to cheat in an election. You decide to pretend you are someone else and head to the polls. You get in line, wait thirty minutes, give them a false name and cast a vote. Yay! You have just committed voter fraud, and given your guy one extra vote. Now what? You can’t exactly get back in line again can you? You might get away with voting as someone else once, but if you go back you run the risk of being recognized.

You have two options now. Go to another polling place, and repeat the process, or get some other people to vote with you. If you are going solo from location to location, each location is a new chance to vote, but it is also a new chance to get caught, for only a single vote for each attempt. Getting people to vote with you can increase the number of votes added, but drastically increases your chances of getting caught.

Simply put, the risk/reward ratio with voter fraud is appalling. One felony, one vote. You are better off hacking the Diebold machines or stuffing the ballot box after the polls close. If you are gonna risk jail to manipulate an election, you want to do it right.

 

[Demigorgon]

Yeah I guess not wanting any of the 12 million (on the conservative side) to 40 million (on the alarmist side) illegal aliens to vote in an American election does indeed make me a racist.

And much like the illegal immigration population we should probably wait until voter ID becomes an enormous problem before even taking the slightest measure to prevent it. How many fraudulent elecetions is too many?

 

[Loss Leader]

And much like the illegal immigration population we should probably wait until voter ID becomes an enormous problem before even taking the slightest measure to prevent it.

How about if we just wait until it becomes any sort of problem at all?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah I guess not wanting any of the 12 million (on the conservative side) to 40 million (on the alarmist side) illegal aliens to vote in an American election does indeed make me a racist.

And much like the illegal immigration population we should probably wait until voter ID becomes an enormous problem before even taking the slightest measure to prevent it. How many fraudulent elecetions is too many?

Why not then just institute random ID checks and punish anyone with out their papers?