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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law
CNN Washington Bureau ^ | January 9, 2008 | Bill Mears

Posted on 01/09/2008 8:22:32 PM PST by My_Name_is_a_Number

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A conservative majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to support an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote. The Supreme Court is reviewing an Indiana law that requires voters to show a photo ID. At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud would disenfranchise large numbers of Americans who might lack proper identification -- many of them elderly, poor or minority voters. In what has become a highly partisan legal and political fight, the justices wrestled with a balancing test of sorts to ensure both state and individual interests were addressed. Civil rights activists and the state Democratic Party complain Indiana's law is the most restrictive in the nation. "The real question is, does it disenfranchise anyone?"

(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: photoid; scotus; testit2; voterfraud; voterid
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last
If this is upheld it will save our SOVEREIGNTY as well as putting the Dems, Mex's and ACLU on SUICIDE WATCH!
1 posted on 01/09/2008 8:22:35 PM PST by My_Name_is_a_Number
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

About time we start securing our elections against vote fraud. As it is now, we are no better that a bananna republic.


2 posted on 01/09/2008 8:24:31 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

Right on.


3 posted on 01/09/2008 8:26:38 PM PST by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

It is absurd NOT to ask for ID. Completely absurd. it should be a no-brainer.


4 posted on 01/09/2008 8:27:49 PM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
Justice Samuel Alito spoke for many of his colleagues, wondering how they should rule in the absence of any clear evidence supporting either side. "The problem I have is, where do you draw the line?" he said. "There is nothing to quantify the extent of the problem or the extent of the burden."

Isn't that the wrong question for a court to decide? The Court should be deciding if there is anything in the Constitution prohibiting legislatures from determining what they must do to prevent fraud. Agreeing with the legislature's decision shouldn't be a part of their inquiry.

Oh well, I can dream.

5 posted on 01/09/2008 8:28:44 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Without limited government, there is no religious freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“Isn’t that the wrong question for a court to decide? The Court should be deciding if there is anything in the Constitution prohibiting legislatures from determining what they must do to prevent fraud. Agreeing with the legislature’s decision shouldn’t be a part of their inquiry.”

It’s still TBD whether we got 2 male Miers for the price of 1.

Only time will tell.


6 posted on 01/09/2008 8:30:50 PM PST by GovernmentIsTheProblem (The GOP is "Whig"ing out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ymani Cricket

Among those cited by Democrats is Mary-Jo Criswell, a 71-year-old Indianapolis Democrat, who could not vote last November because she had no driver’s license or valid passport.

She previously had used a private bank-issued card with her photo when voting. The former precinct committeewoman had difficulty rebuilding an identity trail, and still does not have a valid photo ID. Criswell said in an affidavit she felt intimidated by the burdensome bureaucracy she claims is needed to vote.

LOL-she OBVIOUSLY hasn’t been to the DMV-talk about burdensome bureacracy


7 posted on 01/09/2008 8:30:55 PM PST by hercuroc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ymani Cricket

It is absurd to us but the Democrats have a cottage industry in states where no ID is required....as in NH.


8 posted on 01/09/2008 8:31:12 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

“The real question is, does it disenfranchise anyone?”

Only those it should.


9 posted on 01/09/2008 8:31:26 PM PST by rockinqsranch (Dems, Libs, Socialists...call 'em what you will...They ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

Elections matter...


10 posted on 01/09/2008 8:32:25 PM PST by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

“One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.”

http://www.fwdailynews.com/

Whoops!


11 posted on 01/09/2008 8:35:59 PM PST by jiggyboy (Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

My state has always required photo i.d.

It’s never been an issue.

But then again, we don’t have large populations of illegals trying to make these things issues.


12 posted on 01/09/2008 8:36:07 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

Naive as I am, I thought the logic of requiring an ID to vote would transcend ideology and get a 9/9 ruling out of the court. I hope CNN is wrong about only “a conservative majority” favoring it.


13 posted on 01/09/2008 8:38:15 PM PST by John Jorsett (scam never sleeps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

Wonder if the picture of the headstone will suffice for the picture on the ID in Chicago?


14 posted on 01/09/2008 8:38:28 PM PST by Proud2BeRight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

A strong law requiring voter ID is long overdue.I certainly hope the supreme court upholds Indiana law. The full article made mention that the court may uphold with some changes. I hope they will look at the possibility of requiring votes to be cast only in the state where you received the ID. That will help eliminate one of the favorite frauds perpetrated by the Dems. Double voting. Hundreds of illegal votes are cast every election in winter hot spots like Florida when large amounts of easterners go there for the winter and also vote in their home state via absentee ballot.


15 posted on 01/09/2008 8:39:40 PM PST by cquiggy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc
Criswell said in an affidavit she felt intimidated by the burdensome bureaucracy she claims is needed to vote.

71 years old and obviously on social security and medicare. Now tell me there is no ID requirement to get those benefits. Come on, how stupid do you think we are.

16 posted on 01/09/2008 8:40:36 PM PST by CedarDave (The only access Hillary-care will bring is access to a waiting list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: All

With this law in place the left will try to legalize, then unionize the fraudulent document industry. George Soros will have to buy DieBold and hire every expert programmer he can find.

New pro illegal lobby slogan:
ELECTIONS: Doing the voting that Americans won’t do.


17 posted on 01/09/2008 8:40:45 PM PST by My_Name_is_a_Number
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
The rest of the story, LOL!!

Voter cited by opponents of Indiana's ID law registered in two states

18 posted on 01/09/2008 8:41:55 PM PST by upchuck (Attention Senator Clinton: Lying Is Stupid When The Truth Is So Easy To Find)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

IT WILL STOP ALL THE CHEATERS!!!!


19 posted on 01/09/2008 8:43:49 PM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc

“The former precinct committeewoman had difficulty rebuilding an identity trail, and still does not have a valid photo ID. Criswell said in an affidavit...”

Let her try and rent a movie sometime, THEY don’t have a problem asking for ID!


20 posted on 01/09/2008 8:44:55 PM PST by Beowulf9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote

How about, despite concerns that it could allow thousands of people to vote who aren't eligible?

21 posted on 01/09/2008 8:45:06 PM PST by CaptRon (Pedicaris alive or Raisuli dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
To prevent this...


22 posted on 01/09/2008 8:46:07 PM PST by rlmorel (Liberals: If the Truth would help them, they would use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

I wonder if the justices have to confirm their identity before entering the Supreme Court building. If so, and I suspect they do, perhaps they could extrapolate a bit to society at large.


23 posted on 01/09/2008 8:46:31 PM PST by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cquiggy
That will help eliminate one of the favorite frauds perpetrated by the Dems. Double voting. Hundreds of illegal votes are cast every election in winter hot spots like Florida when large amounts of easterners go there for the winter and also vote in their home state via absentee ballot.

Not to mention the common practice of college students who vote in the town of their school as well as with an absentee ballot from their home state.

I live in a city that has several colleges, including three just in my neighborhood, and most of the kids live out of state yet vote at my polling place.  You can't tell me they represent tens of thousands of double democrat votes.

24 posted on 01/09/2008 8:50:23 PM PST by MNnice (Da ma Dakota)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
Excellent item from Taranto in Opinion Journal on 12/31:

Even Steven?
The Associated Press's Mark Sherman reports on a pending Supreme Court case in a way that seems to give both sides their due, but in substance does not:

The dispute over Indiana's voter ID law that is headed to the Supreme Court in January is as much a partisan political drama as a legal tussle.

On one side are mainly Republican backers of the law, including the Bush administration, who say state-produced photo identification is a prudent measure intended to cut down on vote fraud. Yet there have been no Indiana prosecutions of in-person voter fraud--the kind the law is supposed to prevent.

On the other side are mainly Democratic opponents who call voter ID a modern-day poll tax that will disproportionately affect poor, minority and elderly voters--who tend to back Democrats. Yet, a federal judge found that opponents of the law were unable to produce evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who had been barred from voting because of the law.

But look closely at the "yet" sentences that give the arguments against each side, and you'll see that one is much stronger than the other. The plaintiffs' inability to show that the law has prevented anyone from voting seems a persuasive argument against the Democratic position that the ID requirement is "a modern-day poll tax." By contrast, the absence of prosecutions does not actually rebut the Republican contention that the ID requirement "is a prudent measure intended to cut down on vote fraud."

Does Sherman mean there have been no prosecutions since the law went into effect, or ever? If the former, that would seem to be evidence of the law's success in deterring fraudsters from coming to the polls. If the latter, at most it means the law is superfluous--but it could also mean that prosecutors are reluctant to pursue voter-fraud cases, which, as our colleague John Fund has pointed out, tend to alienate half the electorate.

So what are we to make of Sherman's presenting these two arguments as if they were equally persuasive? Maybe pro-Democratic bias leads him to present the Democrats' poor argument as if it were as persuasive as the Republicans' better one. Or maybe pro-Republican bias leads him to offer a poor argument on behalf of the Democrats. The next paragraph argues for the former interpretation:

The Supreme Court, which famously split 5-4 in the case that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George Bush, will take up the Indiana law on January 9, just as the 2008 presidential primaries are getting under way.

The connection between Bush v. Gore and the Indiana case is . . . what exactly? Or did he just throw that in to prompt a Pavlovian response from Dems?

25 posted on 01/09/2008 8:50:58 PM PST by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law

This is unfair. I'm illegal, how can I vote for Hillary now, I was offered a free bus ride and free welfare for 5 years.
26 posted on 01/09/2008 8:51:00 PM PST by modican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

The Dems need to create a program to help people get IDs. The GOP, if someone wants to register as a Republican, should do the same thing.


27 posted on 01/09/2008 8:52:09 PM PST by doug from upland (Stopping Hillary should be a FreeRepublic Manhattan Project)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc

my grandmother never had a drivers liscense. She still has never driven, to this day. (she’s in her 80s) Or a passport. She votes every year. Democrat, but votes nevertheless.


28 posted on 01/09/2008 8:53:38 PM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: hercuroc
Turns out she was voting in BOTH Florida, and in Indiana:

Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also

claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.

Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she¹s never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.

She is a lyar and a criminal, and this law prevented her from voting in the election when they began requiring ID.

More here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951133/posts

29 posted on 01/09/2008 8:56:25 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

But what about the children, unfortunate undocumented workers, criminals, and dead? Racism!


30 posted on 01/09/2008 9:03:12 PM PST by onja (We will either find a way or make one. - Hannibal Barca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
What biased and disgusting reporting.

Hey CNN we don't want illegal aliens from Mexico voting in our elections!!! The only people who are disenfranchised are those not eligible to vote in the first place!!!

31 posted on 01/09/2008 9:03:32 PM PST by Dengar01
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

Wasn’t it Dems that wanted - and got - ‘motor voter’ registration at DVM offices in every state? That way when folks got their driver’s license (photo ID) they could also register to vote.


32 posted on 01/09/2008 9:04:18 PM PST by vamoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
Drinking Coffee "despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote."

There is not one shred of evidence that this statement is anything other than bull-o-knee, yet it winds up in the opening sentence. The opening line should read:

 WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A conservative majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to support an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo identification because not one instance of voter disenfranchisement can be shown.
33 posted on 01/09/2008 9:04:31 PM PST by HawaiianGecko (waiting to hear what the reverends Jesse & Al have to say about lily white Iowa voting for Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
Actually, I think I remember a case (or cases) of illegal aliens carrying voter information and false identification.

Back in 1992, during the Los Angeles riots, many were arrested, and (IIRC) many of those who were arrested were here illegally. AND, as I recall, there were news reports that one, or some, of those folks had voting registration and false identification materials.

Now, this isn't proof (my memory's quite good, but that was 1992).

However, if someone had access to Lexus/Nexus, they might be able to search that/those news reports.

Alternatively, police reports from that time might contain the information.

So, apologies in advance if this turns out to be a false alarm. However, if memory serves, there exists reports of non-citizens with prima facie evidence of voter fraud or intent to commit same.

Note: I'm not a lawyer, so if I'm off base here, mea culpa.

34 posted on 01/09/2008 9:05:49 PM PST by Seaplaner (Never give in. Never give in. Never...except to convictions of honour and good sense. W. Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
["Justice Antonin Scalia wondered why the Democrats were the ones filing the lawsuit, saying it should have been filed by individual voters who may have been directly harmed by the law. His questioning suggested he thought the case had more to do with politics than the law."]

Man, I LOVE this guy!

["Chief Justice John Roberts… pointed out the state provides free photo IDs to anyone who requests one to vote. "They (the state) help you get it," he said tartly. "If you don't have a photo ID, come in and we'll give you one." ]

Seems like: Game. Set. Match. Democrats Lose!

["Justice John Paul Stevens noted the law in question was passed by a GOP-controlled legislature and signed by a Republican governor...He said candidly that the law would "have an adverse affect on Democrats."

Great grasp of the obvious.

All-in-all, a lot of clear thinking on the SCOTUS today.

35 posted on 01/09/2008 9:07:02 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
There is NO Conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
I love the spin CNN puts in this story.
There are four Conservatives, four idiotic liberals that have no clue what the Constitution says and ONE Flip Flopping confused old man who likes to keep the other eight Justices guessing until the decision is written.
36 posted on 01/09/2008 9:08:26 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (Guns don't kill people, gun free zones kill people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
I don't see how it would disenfranchise anyone. I'd venture to guess that all of these folks have a driver's license, or could get an ID card for a small fee, or for the poor, for free, from a government agency, after showing some other ID, such as a Social Security card, or other card for government services. The poor have some sort of ID for welfare, don't they? If not, now's a good time to start doing that. Might cut down on welfare fraud, too.

The integrity of the voting process MUST be upheld, or all elections could be considered questionable.

37 posted on 01/09/2008 9:08:56 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

You have to Photo ID to buy cigarettes, what the freak is the problem?


38 posted on 01/09/2008 9:09:59 PM PST by Doctor Raoul (Abolish the CIA, give the job to the Free Clinic who know how to stop leaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cquiggy
A strong law requiring voter ID is long overdue.

Strong voter ID laws will be the end of the modern Democrat Party.

39 posted on 01/09/2008 9:11:00 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: TheLion
About time we start securing our elections against vote fraud. As it is now, we are no better that a bananna republic.

My wife is from a banana republic, and her country requires a tamper-proof ID to vote. :)

40 posted on 01/09/2008 9:12:44 PM PST by ElectronVolt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
despite concerns that it could deprive thousands of people of their right to vote.

Illegal aliens have no "right" to vote.

41 posted on 01/09/2008 9:14:44 PM PST by Lexinom (Build the fence and call China to account. GoHunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number
For what it's worth, this from Rasmussen poll:

80% Believe Voters Should Be Required to Show Photo ID
Wednesday, January 09, 2008P

A recent Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found 80% of voters believe everyone should be required to show photo identification to vote. Only 13% disagree.

Full article here: Rasmussen poll

42 posted on 01/09/2008 9:15:03 PM PST by Ymani Cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

.... not to mention there is PLENTY of time TO GET THE ID BEFORE the election in November!!! No excuses!! No PHOTO ID, no vote!!


43 posted on 01/09/2008 9:15:23 PM PST by pollywog (Joshua 1:9 Have not I commanded thee? Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

BTTT! This is the best news I’ve heard in a while- I hope it happens.


44 posted on 01/09/2008 9:17:38 PM PST by ovrtaxt (People seemed to be content, $50 paid the rent, FREAKS WERE IN A CIRCUS TENT, Those were the days.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ymani Cricket
my grandmother never had a drivers liscense. She still has never driven, to this day. (she’s in her 80s) Or a passport. She votes every year. Democrat, but votes nevertheless.

Well, when are YOU going to straighten her out? ;O)

45 posted on 01/09/2008 9:19:19 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (Elections have consequences.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
"I wonder if the justices have to confirm their identity before entering the Supreme Court building."

Ouch. I have been in a newspersons position to watch these people come into the building. I am sad to report that they are pretty much left in without any search.

I know, it's nuts.

46 posted on 01/09/2008 9:23:13 PM PST by AGreatPer ("The Democrats don't give a rats ass about this country"....Rush Limbaugh, 11/15/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: My_Name_is_a_Number

I predict a 7-2 upholding the Constitutionality of this law. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg will be the dissenters.


47 posted on 01/09/2008 9:27:16 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
The connection between Bush v. Gore and the Indiana case is . . . what exactly?

Both cases involve the Democrats trying to steal a Presidential election. I know that's not the connection Mark Sherman is trying to make, but it is the logical connection nonetheless.

48 posted on 01/09/2008 9:29:59 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
"Strong voter ID laws will be the end of the modern Democrat Party."

Whoooo. I wouldn't quite go that far. But it shure would help.

Shees, Philadelphia had a 105% voting attendance in one precinct. The problem. No one wanted to go there to be an observer.

49 posted on 01/09/2008 9:30:08 PM PST by AGreatPer ("The Democrats don't give a rats ass about this country"....Rush Limbaugh, 11/15/07)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: John Jorsett

Ginsburge is against it.


50 posted on 01/09/2008 9:33:08 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last

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