Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID: [U.S. Supreme Court] Justices to Hear Challenge to Law
The Washington Post ^ | December 25, 2007 | 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 ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bushvgore; docket; election; immigration; scotus; voterfraud
To my mind, this whole controversy is a liberal invention. No one no where in this day and age is using IDs to discriminate against minorities at the voting booth.

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.

1 posted on 12/25/2007 11:47:28 AM PST by Aristotelian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
To my mind, this whole controversy is a liberal invention.

Of course it is.

2 posted on 12/25/2007 11:49:25 AM PST by sauropod (Welcome to O'Malleyland. What's in your wallet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
"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..."

Like....illegals??

3 posted on 12/25/2007 11:50:01 AM PST by Felis_irritable (Dirty_Felis_Irritable...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election

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.

4 posted on 12/25/2007 11:51:38 AM PST by Aristotelian ("Don't Tase Me, Bro!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

I see cut-paste didn’t work right.

The piece is By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer


5 posted on 12/25/2007 11:53:44 AM PST by Aristotelian ("Don't Tase Me, Bro!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
...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,...

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.

6 posted on 12/25/2007 11:54:14 AM PST by wmfights (LUKE 9:49-50 , MARK 9:38-41)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

Next thing ya know, they’ll be putting photos on drivers lic. and passports.


7 posted on 12/25/2007 11:55:49 AM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; LdSentinal; Norman Bates

No surprise here.


8 posted on 12/25/2007 11:58:42 AM PST by Clintonfatigued (You can't be serious about national security unless you're serious about border security)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
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.

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.

9 posted on 12/25/2007 11:59:09 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Felis_irritable
Terence T. Evans is a fascist criminal more interested in supporting the rights of vote fraud specialists to vote multiple times than in the rights of every voter to have his or her vote counted properly.

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".

10 posted on 12/25/2007 11:59:57 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

This whole “issue” boils down to the Democrats’ ability to continue cheating, unchecked, as they have for decades. It really is that simple.


11 posted on 12/25/2007 12:02:21 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

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?


12 posted on 12/25/2007 12:06:31 PM PST by shagbark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

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!


13 posted on 12/25/2007 12:10:57 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

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?


14 posted on 12/25/2007 12:15:10 PM PST by umgud (no more subprime politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
...discourage election-day turnout by certain folks...

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.

15 posted on 12/25/2007 12:15:25 PM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
What's to argue?

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.

16 posted on 12/25/2007 12:16:52 PM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

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.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36425-2000Nov16?language=printer


17 posted on 12/25/2007 12:27:50 PM PST by Aristotelian ("Don't Tase Me, Bro!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
To gain access to social welfare benefits — e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, etc. — the “poor” must show photo ID. What do you lib friends think of that requirement? Should that be foregone, too?
18 posted on 12/25/2007 12:30:37 PM PST by Aristotelian ("Don't Tase Me, Bro!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
This goes far beyond illegals voting.

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.

19 posted on 12/25/2007 12:36:09 PM PST by Beagle8U (FreeRepublic -- One stop shopping ....... Its the Conservative Super WalMart for news .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: umgud

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...


20 posted on 12/25/2007 12:53:21 PM PST by padre35 (Conservative in Exile/ Isaiah 3.3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic,

The dead, the illegals and the felons.
21 posted on 12/25/2007 1:35:29 PM PST by festus (Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

What I don’t understand is that the limits of the Federal Constitution on elections and voters is limited to naming the day on which the national elections take place. All other requirements for establishing voting ability is vested with the states and the people. Technically, I believe, the states could require passports and baby foot prints and the maiden name of your mother if the wanted to and by the Constitution the federal government could have no say in the matter.IMHO


22 posted on 12/25/2007 1:49:52 PM PST by Jonathan E (Sustainable Development/Smart Growth is "Environmental Sharia")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian

>>
To gain access to social welfare benefits — e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, etc. — the “poor” must show photo ID. What do you lib friends think of that requirement?
<<

Since not a single one ever brings it up, what is really at work here? Care for the poor and downtrodden of the world or care for the accumulation of power and control?


23 posted on 12/25/2007 2:14:48 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard
This whole “issue” boils down to the Democrats’ ability to continue cheating, unchecked, as they have for decades. It really is that simple.

Absolutely!

And with thousands of illegal immigrants invading our poor country every day, it becomes even more important to the RATS to shoot down any kind of photo ID requirement.

That said...

I have worked the polls for the last four years here in South Carolina. The state requires some type of ID to vote. This can be a voter registration card, a driver's license, a passport, etc.

It has been my personal experience that 95% of the voters use their drivers license which has a photo ID. So, even though we can't require a photo ID, the vast majority of voters present one anyway.

24 posted on 12/25/2007 2:57:54 PM PST by upchuck (And Senator Clinton's experience is................................. where? What? When?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
Mo one, in no location, has EVER been able to produce a “number” of the people who have no ID card, and nationally, I know of only ONE person who the liberals (er, democrat cheaters) have been able to show existed who did NOT have an ID card and who was “poor.”

This ONE woman, New Mexico, was on welfare and a host of other state programs, so she too “could” have bought an ID, but chose to spend her money on other things.

Bookmarked.

25 posted on 12/25/2007 3:01:30 PM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
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

like dead people

26 posted on 12/25/2007 3:16:41 PM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

I know it, and you know it, but it is almost pitifully funny how fixated these people are about this issue. The speculated suffering and difficulty that a handful of voters may encounter, in their minds, more than outweighs the bad social and economic effects of corrupt elections.

However, how do we define “corrupt elections”? Ones in which votes are cast by people who are not legally entitled to vote. Aside from dead and fictional people, illegal aliens must not vote, nor people who are properly registered.

But more to the essential point. In recent elections where voters without proper ID were allowed to vote, what is the typical outcome? Are these elections typically won by the conservative or the liberal candidate? That is almost a rhetorical question!

Historically, who benefits from the lack of voter ID? The Left.

And I speak as a resident of a state that recently elected a dead Senator, made possible because the polls in a major city were held open hours after their normal closing time so “voters” could be bussed in.


27 posted on 12/25/2007 3:29:20 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
"No doubt most people who don't have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates," he wrote.

So now libs except this sort of reasoning?

Reasoning like... Since most crimes are committed by [blank]. (Reasoning based on statistical example is always acceptable to libs. Riiiight.)

28 posted on 12/25/2007 4:13:58 PM PST by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

For one reason only—to make voter fraud easier. Democrats do not care if they get their votes legally or legally—whatever it takes.


29 posted on 12/25/2007 4:24:13 PM PST by Conservativegreatgrandma
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservativegreatgrandma

The ends justify the means. Thank you, Moral Relativism.


30 posted on 12/25/2007 5:20:11 PM PST by Aristotelian ("Don't Tase Me, Bro!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Aristotelian
To my mind, this whole controversy is a liberal invention. No one no where in this day and age is using IDs to discriminate against minorities at the voting booth...

I think you're giving RATS too much credit. I think the fundamental reason for their success at the polls is vote fraud, pure and simple.

31 posted on 12/26/2007 8:06:19 AM PST by gogeo (Democrats want to support the troops by accusing them of war crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson