Skip to comments.Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID: [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices to Hear Challenge to Law
Posted on 12/25/2007 11:47:24 AM PST by Aristotelian
The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.
The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?
The answer so far has depended greatly on whether you are a Democratic or Republican politician -- or even, some believe, judge.
"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.
His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The fiction stems from: 1) the victimization syndrome, in which blacks are urged by many of their own leaders to view themselves as victims and thus not to face the facts regarding their own plight, 2) the damn America syndrome, in which the U.S. is said to be racist, even though the country largely ended racial discrimination within one generation -- a feat unmatched anywhere before in recorded history, and 3) the imperial judiciary, whereby liberals seek to use the third branch of government to achieve that which they cannot attain through the two elected branches of government.
Of course it is.
Note the Post's bias here: "Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election." Gee, I thought the voters of the United States, including Florida, decided the 2000 presidential election, just as they had decided all previous and subsequent elections.
I see cut-paste didn’t work right.
The piece is By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer
That is very well said.
If photo ID is required I guess its easy to see why the Rats want illegals to be able to get drivers licenses.
Next thing ya know, they’ll be putting photos on drivers lic. and passports.
No surprise here.
Interesting. The corrupt Clinton judge actually admits that criminals, illegal aliens, and vote cheaters are Democrats. But what does that have to do with the Constitutionality of the law? Oh well - - let's just hustle this thing up to the Supreme Court and be done with it.
Still, if he knew his history he'd have known the Indiana Republican party has always been equal to the challenges posted by smarmy Democrats when it comes to "adjusting totals".
This whole “issue” boils down to the Democrats’ ability to continue cheating, unchecked, as they have for decades. It really is that simple.
Hey! If American citizens won’t vote Democrat. I’ll just have to go and get voters from elsewhere. Mexico and China seem to have plenty. So what’s it to you?
The only people I know who have any reservation to even a modest ID requirement are lefties, and they universally bring up the “disenfranchisement” card. I ask how many otherwise legitimate voters they expect an ID law would present difficulties for. The answer is always to point to the “many” poor who don’t have documentation and for whom it would always present a “great inconvenience” to have to get an ID.
The same crowd who throw up this smokescreen fully supports trying to impede otherwise legitimate citizens from buying a firearm, even frequently advocating that a (pick a number) day waiting period is not an undue burden.
It is clear to me that in reality those opposed to voter ID are fearful that this requirement will make it tougher for their side to manipulate the voting, and therefore the outcome of the election. It will end the days when “walking around money” can be spread to get anyone with a pulse into the polls.
We cannot get voter ID soon enough!
The court will have to be careful in deciding this. If they decide that the photo ID violates civil rights, then this will set a precident that will get very complicated very quick. If the phot ID’s can’t be required for voting, how many other things can it also not be required for?
The term folks is indispensable if you wish to blur distinctions between age, citizenship status, voting eligibility, etc., as it encompasses everybody, when everybody is not eligible to vote.
I live in a small town.
When we first moved, they had our names on the books, but we were asked to show our driver's licenses to prove it.
No problem .. we did .. and I am known now because I always vote.
Now ... I don't live in NYC or some such large city, and I'm sure the logistics are a lot different .. but, I see nothing wrong, nor unconstitutional about asking for ID of some kind to prove who you are.
From the self same Washington Post from November 2000 regarding the Kennedy-Nixon election of 1960:
In Texas, Kennedy’s 46,000-vote margin was the closest statewide race there since 1948, when Kennedy’s running mate, Lyndon B. Johnson, won a Senate seat by 87 votes (the origin of the nickname “Landslide Lyndon”). Morton’s operatives, aided by local Republicans, uncovered plenty of political chicanery. For instance: In Fannin County, which had 4,895 registered voters, 6,138 votes were cast, three-quarters of them for Kennedy. In one precinct of Angelia County, 86 people voted and the final tally was 147 for Kennedy, 24 for Nixon.
And, in Illinois
In Chicago, where Kennedy won by more than 450,000 votes, local reporters uncovered so many stories of electoral shenanigans—including voting by the dead—that the Chicago Tribune concluded that “the election of November 8 was characterized by such gross and palpable fraud as to justify the conclusion that [Nixon] was deprived of victory.”
Robert Kennedy, his brother’s campaign manager, shrugged off the whole controversy: “A tempest in a teapot.”
Most of the cheating is RATS in big cities that go to several different polls to vote.
If they have to show ID the poll workers would know that the address on the license showed they were out of their district and couldn’t vote there.
Without ID you could register in several different districts and you could vote for others that wont go to the polls.
The SCOTUS may limit their ruling to only disenfranchisement and ID’s.
For me, Voting is a Govt Entity from top to bottom, why would an ID requirement not fall under the Govt’s purview?
I can see an alternative like a thumb print as well, the Govt has a compelling interest in ensuring fair and accurate voting occurs...