Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 09:53 AM
Original message
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
Source: Yahoo

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.




Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 09:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. Your papers, please.
:mad:

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digidigido Donating Member (553 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. Following the same logic, what's needed to deter voter fraud is a paper trail,
and some form of verified voting. But then again, logic and reason haven't been the hallmark of the Supreme Court these last 8 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sorry, but I've never followed the logic of opposing the showing of ID at the voting booth
If "poor, older and minority voters" as the article says would be adversely affected by this, then let's address that problem. What problems are these groups having in getting identification, and what can we do to help them? Whether its free legal services or a waiver of new/renewal ID fees for those that cannot afford it, isn't that a better approach than "let's just not require ID?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. It Destroys The Idea Of A Secret Ballot.
Since your name is associated with your ballot you can be targeted for harassment.

Jay
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. It is already public record as to who has voted in each election
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
93ncsu Donating Member (91 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. How is your name associated with your ballot ?
You need the ID to get a ballot. You do not need to put your ID on your ballot.

How is anyone supposed to be able to track whcih ballot is yours without your ID on it ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
13. no it doesn't...
your name is still on record...sheesh...:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #5
23. Secret ballots are like money - they have no provenance and can therefore be stolen
Which is more important? To cast a vote that nobody can steal, or to be free of harrassment which is illegal anyway?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. Isn't This Like a Poll Tax?
Edited on Mon Apr-28-08 01:05 PM by fascisthunter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
debunkthelies Donating Member (290 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #24
43. Yes
and if they want picture ID's the state should have to supply FREE picture ID's to everyone. :dilemma:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. My Sentiment as Well
but they won't. this was meant to disenfranchise as many voters as possible. The timing of this stinks to high heaven as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. Indiana says they will provide free photo ID's to those who can't afford one -
- from an AP article:

"Indiana provides IDs free of charge to people without driver's licenses. It also allows voters who lack photo ID's to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity."

Maybe I'm the minority but I have no problem with this, especially given the above allowances.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. Not sure about that
look just to play devil's advocate.

How does requiring me to show my ID to prove that I am a legitimate voter of the district I going to vote in also mean that I will either be bothered or that how voted will be known??

The secret ballot is not challenged.

You may be able to make a better case that this requirement does in fact cause voters not to vote.

Bur for those who can I do not see it as big problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jayfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. I Think I'm Confusing Two Different Issues.
Our 2008 primary was the first time I had ever been asked for ID. I think because of that, I was a little more attentive than usual and noticed that the poll worker wrote my ballot number the sheet I used to declare my party affiliation. I was a little disturbed by the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
49. Actually..
.. doesn't it amount to a kind of poll tax
and voter intimidation tactic?

For the poor, elderly, disabled, and other
groups, getting that kind of ID could be
very difficult and time consuming. They
might just be inclined to give up on it
or not do it.

But, then, that's the idea, isn't it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. The whole picture ID frame is a bullshit cover for JIM CROW. The only election fraud we should be
worried about is the BBV election theft that has been perpetrated against us in 2000 2002 2004 and 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. FFS, don't whip out the race card so quickly
You're making this a lot more complicated than it should be. If these people lack ID, that impacts their lives in far more ways than just voting. Driving, working, access to government services/programs/assistance, prescription drugs, and so on. I see no reason not to address this and help out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gormy Cuss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
31. FFS, it's an intimidation tactic
It's not the same as Jim Crow but it's the same sort of tactic.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. None. You have an internet connection. Read the report by the 2001 2001 National Commission on Federal Election Reform and HAVA.

This issue breaks on party lines because Republican politicians understand that every barrier placed in front of the voting booth disproportionately affects people who are likely to vote against the GOP candidate. Requiring an ID to vote is simply placing another barrier to voter participation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bean fidhleir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Precisely -- Jim Crow, but class-based.
It's significant that no state (afaiaa) requiring ID offers to create id for nothing. In effect, it is a tax on voting, a poll tax.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Sorry, posted in the wrong place.
Edited on Mon Apr-28-08 02:18 PM by Up2Late
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. I am not so sure about that
unfortunately there have been numerous cases of fraud in Milwaukee uncovered in the last few elections (one that comes readily to mind is the McGee recall of last year, he is going to be facing trial over that)

The local paper found fraud, and and independent panel researching fraud allegations also found evidence of fraud.

This panel advocated in it's report that the State should consider a voter ID law.

Gov. Doyle ignored this finding, insulted the board of inquiry he helped appoint.

Considering some of his other antics, it is not unreasonable for some to feel that a mechanism to ensure a fair vote is in place.

If you wonder why I seem harsh on Doyle it is simple.

We have clean politics in this state (or used to) Sen Feingold, and Kohl are great examples of it.

Doyle comes off some what sleazy, you would have to live in Wisconsin and see him action to understand what I am talking about.

Both him and Gov Blago in next door Illinois are under federal investigations.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #29
53. I guarantee you that for every documented case of Vote Fraud you can show me I can show you a
thousand cases where BBV vote theft was used for ELECTION FRAUD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mdgib Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. I agree Tarc. If ID's are a burden, let's work on that.
I want my government to be elected by US citizens. People with a ligitimate interest in the outcome. I don't like the way some governments are run. But I'm not going to North Korea expecting to be able to vote out it's dictator. If you are not here legally, enjoy your temporary stay and follow the laws set forth by the government that WE THE PEOPLE of the US elected. If you are here legally then by all means we should find a way to help you excercise your priviledge to participate in government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. My mother, a US citizen, is no longer able to drive and is in a nursing facility. She does not have
a photo ID, but she should still be able to vote. Thankfully, we don't have that idiotic law here, so her voter registration is adequate for her to receive a ballot. Although physically very frail, her mind is sharp as ever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. In most jurisdictions, the DMV can provide a "non-driver" equivalent ID to a driver's license. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I know that. But, I am not going to make her make that trip to the DMV unless necessary.
Edited on Mon Apr-28-08 12:52 PM by BleedingHeartPatriot
Any excursions from the facility are exhausting for her, although we still take her out, a lot, which she appreciates, although she tires easily. So, I will wait until mandated to have her make that trip.

And, I wonder how those folks who don't have someone available during the week to take them, would manage to get their ID's to vote.

I really appreciated that the nursing home made sure those who wanted to vote were registered, allowing them to receive absentee ballots. I wonder how that could have been accomplished if "photo ID" requirement were in place. Thankfully, we don't have to deal with that, at least not yet.

The drip, drip, drip of disenfranchisement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #11
30. She can vote absentee
at least in Wisconsin, I see it done all the time.

Also my wife who is an RN tells me about when it is election time.

I do not see this as a great impediment to voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. This is a non-issue it doesn't happen
24 voting fraud cases since 2001 and 12 of them were thrown out/ acquitted

That being said for most people this seems like a no-brainer and that is part of how it is sold. How it is USED is to intimidate people (who just happen to mostly vote Dem) into not voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #10
15. they need to have poll-watchers to make sure the law is applied fairly...
and that it isn't only minorities being asked to show i.d.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #3
19. The problem is that we *WON'T* address that problem.
Edited on Mon Apr-28-08 12:41 PM by Tesha
The point of the Republicans wanting ID was that they
*KNEW* it would make it harder for "those demographics"
to vote, and that was the goal. In principle, there's
no problem with requiring ID (I'm in favor of a national
Voter Registration Card) but the Republicans will ensure
that we stop right were we are, with ID required but
"those people" being hard-pressed to obtain the required
form(s) of ID.

Me, I'd like to find out how many "snowbird" Republicans
are registered down south (say Florida) and *ALSO*
registered in some northern state. That's one of the
reasons I'm in favor of a single, uniform National Voter
ID Card; that would eliminate *THAT* particular problem
right quick. But I don't see the Republicans working
on that problem either, since such dual-registration
almost always benefits them.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
34. Which is exactly why this law should have been struck down, it's putting the cart before the horse.
Unless the State provides the funding for the a mandatory State I.D. (and the costs associated with assisting those who need help with the process) they should not require a State issued I.D. to vote. It's clearly a state manufactured obstacle to discourage the poor and mentally handicapped people from voting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
all that jazz Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
50. I think the state has that covered.
In Indiana, if you can not afford an i.d., you can get it for free. It costs $13 normally...$10 for the elderly and disabled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 10:33 AM
Response to Original message
4. John Paul Stevens?
He is considered to be one of the more liberal Justices on the Supreme Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
14. Stevens is not a down the line liberal at all.
The case I most often point to in order to prove that is Texas v. Johnson, the flag burning case, in which Stevens said banning flag-burning was not unconstitutional just because he found it to be offensive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. I see your boy Roberts voted with the majority
You must be beaming with pride.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Roberts is not my "boy"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #21
45. Back during Robert's confirmation hearings you were criticizing Dems
and DUers who wanted a filibuster. So yes, he is your boy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 07:51 AM
Response to Reply #45
52. You cannot filibuster with only 22 votes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
25. lol
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dysfunctional press Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
16. reading to the last paragraph, it's not as onerous as it may first sound...
Edited on Mon Apr-28-08 12:00 PM by QuestionAll
Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinistrous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
17. With photo id, the republicans are much more certain
whose votes they are stealing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
26. Is This Equivalent to a Poll Tax?
Edited on Mon Apr-28-08 01:00 PM by fascisthunter
I also get weary when conservatives say this is ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. The only "poll tax" aspect in Indiana is the
time and effort to get the ID.

Can't afford it? Fine, then the non-driver's license ID is free.

For some people--elderly, disabled--it'll be a hassle to get one, either because transportion is a problem or they're not well equipped to get out of their house/nusring home, or because they lack documentation. There's usually some work-around for the lack of a birth certificate.

It means that some time between now and November that's what they'll have to do, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. Which will be a Poll Tax to Disenfranchise Voters
This is done also right before an election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #37
54. It was "done" a while back.
It was wending its way through the courts. If it hadn't gone to the courts, there would have been clarity a year or two ago. Presumably while it was making its way through the courts the requirement was in abeyance and the argument was made not to get the IDs. That's proven counterproductive.

Again, the "poll tax" is the effort to go and get the ID, to secure the documentation needed. It's comparable to calling registering and asking for an absentee ballot a "poll tax". I have trouble calling the requirement to put forth effort a 'tax'.

Remember that "poll" in "poll tax" means "head". You can fancy it up by calling it a "capitation" tax, if you want to, using a Latin word for 'head', "caput". It was often a prerequisite for being allowed to vote. If there is no tax, there is no head tax.

The process required for securing the ID may make voting cumbersome, and no doubt will for some, but that's a different kind of critter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Up2Late Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
32. This is very bad and another reason that a Democrat needs to be the next President ...
...so we came get some new, young, liberals on the SCOTUS. :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nels25 Donating Member (636 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. One problem
it is my perception that we are on the wrong side with the majority of the public on this one.

In my home state of Wisconsin this issue has a 70% support (hell it is even has a higher support rating than the death penalty).

Yeah we may get young liberals on SCOTUS but my guess would be they will roundly hated by a legitimate portion of the populace just like we abhor the present makeup of the court.

Something to consider.

I want Justices who will use their minds a good judgments, not an ideologue.

We as a nation have had enough of that, it has left a nasty legacy of hate and discontent.

It would be nice to get past it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JChan Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #36
58. nothing wrong with it
You have to supply an ID for a variety of things in live.

This is one of the most sacred of our rights in the Const it is not extended to non citizens or fellons.

People need to get over themselves. Just pull out your license or photo ID and stop complaining like a bunch of schoolgirls. Not having an ID is NO EXCUSE ... get your lazy azz out and get one. I dont buy there are a lot without them its prac. required to get employment. If disabled and cant get one ... call your local gov. and see what they can do or get a mailin ballot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
35. There goes the Amish vote.
They don't willingly allow themselves to be photographed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crooked Moon Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
40. Supreme Court upholds (Indiana) voter ID law
Source: The Hill

The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision Monday to uphold an Indiana law requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls, overruling the concerns of Democrats and civil rights advocates who argued the law burdens elderly, minority and student voters.

The ruling comes one week before Indiana's Democratic presidential primary, which is shaping up as the next major battleground in the race between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.).

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, wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in a ruling joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.


Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law-2008-04-28.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crooked Moon Donating Member (278 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
41. dupe. my apologies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberal N proud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. One more way to intimidate voters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JChan Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
60. why
your intimidated when asked to show ID?

Banks, Airports, police? Do you live your life in fear becuase someone
might ask for your ID?

If so there are a lot of people that need meds out there because the're frekin
paranoid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KamaAina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
47. A "solution" in search of a problem
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/04/28/a-solution-in-search-of-a-problem.aspx

I'm just beginning to read through the opinions in today's decision upholding the facial validity of Indiana's Voter ID law. Along with many others, I have argued that the law is unconstitutional because it imposes burdens on voting without advancing any governmental interest. Thus, to my mind the most noteworthy paragraph in Justice Stevens's lead opinion is the one in which he tries to adduce evidence of an actual problem that this law would address:

The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nations history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indianas own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayorthough perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person frauddemonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

The third piece of evidence (Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor) is not really on point, as Justice Stevens more or less acknowledges, because it was "perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud," and thus would be unaffected by the Indiana law. So what we are left with is (i) "flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nations history by respected historians and journalists"; and (ii) "occasional examples have surfaced in recent years."

For the first proposition, what does the opinion cite? Only this: An anecdote about in-person voter impersonation allegedly orchestrated by Boss Tweed in 1868. And for the second -- occasional "recent" examples? Justice Stevens tips his hat to the Brennan Center's showing that "much of" the evidence of such fraud "was actually absentee ballot fraud or voter registration fraud." Nevertheless, he states that "there remain scattered instances of in-person voter fraud." The evidence for this? That in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election, a partial investigation confirmed that one voter committed in-person voting fraud.


Boss Tweed in 1868, and one voter in 2004. Ohhhhh-kayyyy. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tbyg52 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
48. Hi there, people interested in this issue! May I suggest....
that you have a look at the Election Reform forum, if you were not already aware of its existence!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=203

I believe we are still in need of some daily news editors - please have a look and give it your consideration!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3155118#3160046
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ileus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-28-08 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
51. it's about time...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveEconomist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
55. The Key q: How many legitimate votes will be deterred per in-person ID fraud prevented?
The answer appears to be--millions (see the Carter-Baker Commission Voter ID dissent quoted below) ! While the media spin tens of thousands of words about Jeremiah Wright, they have devoted only a few sentences to what could be the decisive factor in keeping Democrats out of the WH once again this fall.

The ingeniously deceptive "Voter ID" idea came from the devious mind of Republican Prince of Darkness Jim Baker. It got into public policy through the weakness and ignorance of Jimmy Carter on the Carter-Baker Commission and of Chris Dodd on the "Help America Vote Act" conference committee.

Anyone who's studied economics knows about cost-benefit analysis. As the "Slate" article cited in post #47 above pointed out, whenever a proposed policy change ostensibly would prevent something undesirable from happening, it's important to investigate whether the alleged "cure" is more harmful than the problem it is supposed to solve.

Such analysis has been done, but has remained obscure because of media incompetence and corruption. Thus the relevant cost-benefit analysis has been ignored by powerful Republican pols and judges. Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the lower court opinion the Supreme Court upheld for Indiana, happens to be a well-known economist himself. So it is especially galling when he approves "Voter ID" with cynical sophistry, and when the Bush-appointed majority on the Supreme Court ratifies what they certainly must know to be unsound legal reasoning for pure political advantage.

Below is a dissent from the Carter-Baker Commission report which exposes the high-level voter disfranchisement fraud just perpetrated by the USSC:

From http://www.carterbakerdissent.com :

"Commissioner Spencer Overton [email protected] T: 202.994.9794

DISSENTING STATEMENT

I am a professor who specializes in election law, and I served on the Carter-Baker Commission. I am writing separately to express my dissenting views to the Carter-Baker Commission's photo ID proposal.

... the Commission's Report fails to undertake a serious cost-benefit analysis. The existing evidence suggests that the type of fraud addressed by photo ID requirements is extraordinarily small and that the number of eligible citizens who would be denied their right to vote as a result of the Commission's ID proposal is exceedingly large. According to the 2001 Carter-Ford Commission, an estimated 6% to 10% of voting-age Americans (****approximately 11 million to 19 million potential voters****) do not possess a driver's license or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID, and these numbers are likely to rise as the "Real ID Act" increases the documentary requirements for citizens to obtain acceptable identification.

The 2005 Carter-Baker Commission does not and cannot establish that its "Real ID" requirement would exclude even one fraudulent vote for every 1000 eligible voters excluded."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
desk Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Good
I don't understand why some people think requiring voters to
produce an ID is unreasonable.  If a person does not need
identification to vote why should he need one to exercise his
second amendment right? How can you say that a person does not
need ID to exercise one part of the constitution but needs it
to exercise another? Or do you people not want the poor and
minorities to own guns? 
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
U4ikLefty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-29-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
56. So it like 7:59pm & polls close at 8pm. I just realize that I dropped
Edited on Tue Apr-29-08 05:15 PM by U4ikLefty
my drivers license. I think it fell out of my wallet when I pulled it out of my glove-compartment. The poll-watcher (a known Republican) tells me I cannot vote & will need my license to vote. I tell him to wait a couple of minutes while I run back to my car to get my license. I show back up to the door at 8:02pm & the same poll-worker tells me that I'm too late to vote. How much is that, or similar scenarios gonna play out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JChan Donating Member (14 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. simple
you lose
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Apr 01st 2023, 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC