Little-Acorn
New member
It's about time. Now maybe other states will start requiring Photo ID's too, so that Senor Pancho Villa of Tijuana can't waltz in to a precinct, glance at the voter lists on the table, and announce he is Ellsworth Codrington III and vote; then go into another, do the same, and vote as Sylvester Q. Stallone etc., as he currently can in the California precincts I've seen.
In most states Photo IDs are free, have nothing to do with drivers licenses, and many will bring them to your house so that the elderly, handicappped etc. don't have to leave home to get them.
Naturally, Democrats are screaming bloody murder, complaining that this will cut out a lot of their usual voter base. Well, I can't argue with that. Laws that punish criminal and civil offenders often do hit disproportionate numbers of Democrats. Apparently the Democrats agree. Too bad, so sad.
---------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
by MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
April 28, 2008
5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements.
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
In most states Photo IDs are free, have nothing to do with drivers licenses, and many will bring them to your house so that the elderly, handicappped etc. don't have to leave home to get them.
Naturally, Democrats are screaming bloody murder, complaining that this will cut out a lot of their usual voter base. Well, I can't argue with that. Laws that punish criminal and civil offenders often do hit disproportionate numbers of Democrats. Apparently the Democrats agree. Too bad, so sad.
---------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
by MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
April 28, 2008
5 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements.
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
