Wasserman/Fitrakis: Did the US Supreme Court just elect John McCain?

[babylonsister]

Did the US Supreme Court just elect John McCain?
by Harvey Wasserman | April 30, 2008 - 10:43am
by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman



The US Supreme Court has just dealt a serious blow to voters' rights that could help put John McCain in the White House by eliminating tens of thousands of voters who generally vote Democratic.

By 6-3 the Court has upheld an Indiana law that requires citizens to present a photo identification card in order to vote. Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, Georgia, Hawaii and South Dakota have similar laws. Though it's unlikely, as many as two dozen other states could add them by election day. Other states, like Ohio, have less stringent ID requirements than Indiana's, but still have certain restrictions that are strongly opposed by voter rights advocates.

The decision turns back two centuries of jurisprudence that has accepted a registered voter's signature as sufficient identification for casting a ballot. By matching that signature against one given at registration, and with harsh penalties for ballot stuffing, the Justices confirmed in their lead opinion that there is "no evidence" for the kind of widespread voter fraud Republican partisans have used to justify the demand for photo ID.

Voting rights activists have long argued that since photo ID can cost money, or may demand expensive trips to government agencies, the requirement constitutes a "poll tax." Taxes on the right to vote were used for a century to prevent blacks and others from voting in the south and elsewhere. They were specifically banned by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1964.

But the Court's lead opinion, written by Justice Stevens, normally a liberal, said that though rare, the "risk of voter fraud" was nonetheless "real" and that there was "no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters." The burden of obtaining a voter ID, said the court, was not so difficult as to be deemed unConstitutional. Ohio election protection Attorney Cliff Arnebeck believes Stevens joined the decision to divide the Court's conservative majority, and to leave the door open for further litigation.

But there is no indication the corporate media or Democratic Party will be pursuing significant action on this issue any time soon. Though the Kerry Campaign solicited millions of dollars to "protect the vote" in 2004, it has not supported independent research into that election's irregularities. In the King-Lincoln Civil Rights lawsuit, in which we are attorney and plaintiff, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties destroyed ballot materials, in direct violation of federal law. There has been no official legal follow-up on this case, no major media investigation, and no support from the Democratic Party either to investigate what happened in Ohio 2004, or to make sure it doesn't happen again in 2008. The issue has yet to be seriously raised by the major Democratic candidates despite the fact that it could render their campaigns moot.

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14347

[KaryninMiami]

1. This decision is getting some media coverage- but the implications behind it are not-

that's what's so upsetting. Most people don't have a clue as to how huge this decision is, the potential ramifications of requiring eveyone to have a picture ID, what a "Poll Tax" is or what it really means in the big picture. Not one Democratic elected official has said a word about this- at least not anyone I've seen so far- which is equally disturbing. But then again, why should I be surprised? The media reported on the decision but left out the main point of the seriousness of this-- but then after all, Reverand Wright is a much more exciting story then the potential disenfranchisement of voters...

[rocktivity]

2. Then here's what we do--launch a statewide initiative to GET everyone ID

But if they have to be paid for, doesn't that amount to a poll tax?

:shrug:
rocknation

[babylonsister]

3. Yes, it seems to amount to a poll tax to me. And what happens

when these IDs need to be renewed? Who will pay for that? The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[crimsonblue]

4. You think this really matters? I don't.

For one simple reason: we have no way of verifying votes. We have no idea how prevalent electronic vote switching or fraud occurs, so it casts doubt on every vote. I tend to fall on the pessimist side of the scale, but I thought it a bit odd that the exit polls in NH were essentially flipped with the actual voting results. Having Obama ahead 10% in exit polls only to lose by 10%... that's some coincidence.

[usregimechange]

5. Not true, see here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3225602

And trust Justice Stevens, he is one of the good guys!