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

[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.

[festus]

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

The dead, the illegals and the felons.

[Jonathan E]

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

[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?
<<

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?

[upchuck]

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.

[Robert A Cook PE]

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.

[reg45]

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

[theBuckwheat]

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.

[delacoert]

"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.)

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

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

[Aristotelian]

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

[gogeo]

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.