High Court Wary Of Striking Voter ID Law

[brooklynite]

Source: AP

The Supreme Court appeared reluctant Wednesday to strike down the nation's strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before being allowed to cast a ballot.

The justices heard arguments over an Indiana law, passed in 2005, that's backed by Republicans as a prudent way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups challenging the law as unconstitutional call 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.

"You want us to invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience?" Justice Anthony Kennedy said near the end of an hour-long argument. Kennedy, often a key vote, appeared more willing than some to consider changes to the law.

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. Wednesday's case should be decided by late June, in time for the November elections.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/09/supremecourt/main3692862.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_3692862

[acmavm]

1. 'Minimal inconvenience'? How elitist. And what a crock.

[Roland99]

2. Hmm....Indiana went over 20% in favor of Bush. Repubs going after Repubs?

HA! As if.

[Toots]

3. I have no problem with this law at all

It is very easy to get a picture ID from every state in the Union if you seek one. I see no reason any American would not wish to have one. Cash any check you need to show one. Establish any form of credit you need to show one. To drive any vehicle you need to show one and none of those things are as impoirtant as voting IMO. To buy a gun you need to show photo ID...What's the big woof.. Give the Republicans one and pick our battles a bit better...

[cap]

4. The id's that you are talking about do not exist for a large percentage of poor people

They dont have checking accounts because they can't afford the bank fees. They don't own cars and don't drive so they dont have licenses. They cant afford guns so they dont have photo ID. They weren't born in hospitals -- couldn't afford the health care so they were born at home. Therefore, they dont have birth certificates so they cant get government issued id's. They cant establish credit because they literally have no money. They are at subsistence levels.


There are millions of people like this. There have been studies done of this cohort of the population... I forget the term... but there is a word for these folks.

This is a major case.

[Toots]

7. I suspect the majority of those folks are Republicans then...

If they wish to vote they should show ID.. I don't think that is unreasonable....

[BadgerKid]

12. How to distinguish them from "illegals"? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. If they don't have bank accounts they are likely using Check Cashing services, which

require the use of an ID.

[cap]

37. nope ... they are paid in cash

busboys and waiters are paid in cash. Day Laborers hanging outside 7-11s are paid in cash. Lawn repair workers are paid in cash. Maids are paid in cash. It's a cash based economy. It's not a reality that you or I deal with. Except these people are the visible invisibles. People buying or selling stuff on major city intersections.

They arent Republican or Democrat. They arent in the system at all.

[Stewie]

39. If they have no ID or bank accounts...

...then what are the odds they registered to vote?

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. You seem to be describing the work done by undocumented workers

If I am not mistaken, you need to be a citizen to vote.

[tidy_bowl]

45. Your argument is specious......

.....the law they are considering provides for 'free' photo IDs issued by the state, so how can you possibly be against a common sense law such as this? There is no problem except for manufactured ones in this case as you attempt to do.

[Hosnon]

10. As I see it, laws such as this one will tend to decrease the number of Democrats

that vote more so than it will for Republicans. That right there is why the laws raise a red flag for me. I have yet to see any evidence of any problem with fraudulent voters (not voting machines) and certainly not any evidence of a significant enough problem to tinker with the right to vote.

[Pastiche423]

14. You must not know any poor people

When living on SSDI, any added expense to a monthly budget is a hardship. I do not drive, so I have no need of a drivers license. To get a fed ID, it would cost me at least $$$ for a birth certificate, $$$ for transportation to get to a DMV (no public transportation here), $$$ for the ID. Essentially it would be a poll tax.

The only checks I write are for bills to be sent through the mail. For purchases, I use a debit/credit card that pulls the funds directly from my bank account.

Why should I spend all that money (that's going to cause me a hardship) just to vote? And, by far, I am not alone. Whose going to pay for this expense to those that don't have the funds, you?

[joeglow3]

25. But you can afford a computer and internet access.

Priorities people!

[Mel]

27. library

you can use a computer at the public library, so what was that about priorities?

[spotbird]

31. Aside from the absurdity of your suggestion

why do you think id is necessary? What is the purpose of disenfranchising these people? What state interest does it serve? Can you site even one example where ID would have prevented a fraudulent vote? The proponents of the plan were not even to show one example. Not even one.

The argument that people lose their right to vote because of a hypothetical problem is idiotic. The very minimum requirement should be a demonstrated state interest is protected, but that very low standard is impossible to meet because this is not a real problem, it is a lie to limit the rights of the most vulnerable and powerless in society.

[joeglow3]

35. Oh, I don't support the law

I don't support the law because I don't see a whole of benefit it has.

Maybe I was in a bad mood this morning. However, I have seen some people here we talk about how they can't afford anything, but post ALL DAY. Now, there are things like being physically inable to work, etc. However, there are also some who just choose to purchase other things.

[spotbird]

36. It is safe to assume that

not everyone who is able to post is also able to make a living.

[joeglow3]

43. Exactly

I agree completely. Like I said, I was having a bad morning.

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. My friend who lives paycheck to paycheck uses my computer

Now what was that about priorities?

[Gormy Cuss]

41. Here's a priority for you. Voter fraud isn't a big problem.

Election fraud is where the emphasis belongs.

[Sixty_cycle_humm]

33. How did you get a checking account

without an I.D. or some form of identification? You need ID to get food stamps, welfare, medicare, and WIC. If people are so poor they can't afford a free ID then how can they get any help from the system?

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. No it isn't very easy to get a picture ID

Missouri's law was struck down for this very reason. Tens of thousands of people in Missouri had no picture ID or any means of getting one. Most were either poor, elderly or disabled.

And even if a voter CAN get a picture ID, that costs money, making this requirement a poll tax. That is illegal.

This is certainly NOT a battle we should just give to the republicans; voter ID disenfranchises voters who are more likely to vote Democratic.

[liberalpragmatist]

34. In Missouri, students were extremely effected as well

National law allows college students who live in a different state to vote in the state of their college or university.

Yet if Missouri was not their primary residence, then those students would have found it extremely hard to vote in the 2006 election. Simply put, there was very little way for them to get a photo ID and it was extremely inconvenient to obtain one.

Luckily, that law was struck down. But Arizona, for example, saw student voter participation plummet when they introduced their photo ID requirement. That would likely be the case in Indiana, as well.

[spotbird]

32. Shouldn't a law have a purpose?

If the government is going to take some one's right to vote away from them, shouldn't the government at least have a justification for doing so? Shouldn't there be a minimal requirement of proof that the law will prevent fraud?

[Bitwit1234]

5. Add an amendment to the law if they won't strike it down.

Make it the responsibility of the state of Indiana to take each and every one of the people who need the ID to the proper place to receive one. Pay for it and then return them home. Then pay them for the inconvenience of having to take at least half a day to get one. The cost would make them drop it right off.

[Bitwit1234]

6. PS and make it so the state has to provide

the certificates that they require the person to submit to get the ID. Lots of seniors don't have driver licenses. And a lot of states didn't record marriage licenses, birth certificates or death certificates.

As progressive as the state of Virginia is supposed to be they didn't require these certificates and then some of the states had fires and the records were destroyed. So it should be up to the state to provide research to find the necessary documents.

[thereismore]

8. Message from the Supremes to dirt poor people: fuck you. nt

[Joe Bacon]

9. Here's how the court will vote

Yep, I bet everyone will agree that the court will vote this way:


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: to :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

[Hosnon]

11. Haha, I like that. Your system should be adopted by all when discussing the

Supreme Court.

I will, from now on, use that instead of "in a 5-4 decision".

[Hugin]

13. Yeah, why bother hearing cases any more...

They could just set up an auto reply to send that response to any queries sent in.

[askeptic]

15. Smokescreen - now if we could only get machines that can count votes

There is no evidence that there is a voter fraud problem - but plenty of evidence that we have a vote-counting fraud problem - especially with Diebold. I'm much more concerned that the count is fraudulent than that there is a fraudulent voter problem.

[Hugin]

16. I'm thinking poll workers seeing the same couple of people coming in... Oh, say 10 or 12 thousand...

times would raise some eyebrows? red flags? alerts? a question or two?

This whole 'voter fraud' thing is a Republican Red-Herring (verified through the whole Attorney firing scandal).

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[midlife_mo_Jo]

24. I grew up in Louisiana

in a heavily democratically controlled state. Even then, intraparty politics was nasty and often crooked. The joke was always that the precinct with the most votes was the local cemetery.

Voter fraud was always a topic of discussion - among democrats.

[maddezmom]

17. minimal inconvenience?

:eyes:

[happyslug]

18. I like the observation that you needed a photo ID to vote but NOT to register.

Thus I can register under all types of names without any form of ID, but then need an Photo ID to actually vote. It was also asked by a judge why did Indiana NOT issue a Photo ID upon registration and avoid the whole dispute. i.e. if ID is that important ot avoid fraud, why not prepare a Photo ID as people register? That avoids the whole dispute, as people register they will get the needed Voter photo ID.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

19. And such an ID would of course be freely issued to the voter. n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. And the supporting documents as well?

[Lone_Star_Dem]

30. Of course.

If it's to be required to vote then that's just the way it will have to be.

[SoCalDem]

23. Costco should take over voter registration.. They can produce a photo ID

in a matter of seconds.

It's always made me crazy to see how much money dems WASTE on lawsuits to fight the contrarian republican anti-voter legislation they keep passing here and there.. That SAME money would probably get "bulletproof" IDs for the ones who cannot afford it, AND cut the contrarians off at the knees.. Not much use passing legislation that does not hurt their opponents (us)..

We got to the moon in under 10 years...with computing power that was less than what we have in Blackberries™, so it's hard for me to figure out why the government cannot just issue passports to its citizens. and be done with it.. Can't afford one?..it's free.. renewals are pretty cheap,. once you have one.

For the few people still alive, who have no "supporting documentation" of their birth, surely a work-around could be found, on a case by case basis (in fact there already IS one)..

Sometimes I think we all prefer to fight over issues, instead of just solving them..

[JPZenger]

26. Agree

The issue particularly arises among older persons and inner city residents who don't have driver's licenses. In many cities, there are large numbers of people who never got a drivers license because they use public transit or have a problem (such as old age) that causes them not to drive. Also, some older women never got driver's licenses because their husband always drived.

If a photo ID is required, the State should provide it for free to people who don't have driver's licenses.

The CNN report I heard yesterday made a big deal out of the fact that the opponents of the ID law were not able to present an individual who was refused the right to vote. Instead, I believe the proponents of the law should have to show that the law actually stopped an attempt at voter fraud.

The only voter fraud (as opposed to vote count fraud) that I am aware of in the last 15 years involved unauthorized absentee ballots in a race in Philadelphia for the State Senate. That vote fraud was caused by political hacks working for the candidates, not illegals trying to vote. That vote was overturned by a court and a new special election was held.

[raebrek]

21. ID requirements

The police can request you to show ID.
A bank requires ID to open bank accounts.
So, I think that the ID requirement is ok.

Raebrek!!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

22. Number of Indiana prosecutions for voter fraud: 0

So something else is going on here.

[Roy]

38. The other side of this coin is that in heavily republican

districts, unless you look like a hippy liberal, do you really think ID will be required of a known republican vote?

This law will be overly enforced in liberal districts and ignored in republican districts, results will be a significant difference for the repubs seeking any edge they can get.

[tom_paine]

42. The Supreme Court is not a court at all, anymore, it is strictly a Political Operation.

The Bushies need to get this done to suppress more votes, so their criminals in robes will get this done.

It really is as simple as that, and this dog and pony show is a laughable and predictable as a Soviet Show Trial.

We now have the same problem as the Germans did by 1934. A substantial minority, if not a majority of judges are now criminals and party hacks themselves, making decisions based not on law nor precedent, but what is good for the Bushies and the Republic Party.

It may well be beyond the point of no return now, as Germany was by 1934. We may well be living in 1937, in many ways.