Supreme Court appears likely to back voter ID law

CNN Washington Bureau ^ | January 9, 2008 | Bill Mears

[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?"

[Lexinom]

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

Illegal aliens have no "right" to vote.

[Ymani Cricket]

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

[pollywog]

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

[ovrtaxt]

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

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

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)

[AGreatPer]

"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.

[Repeal 16-17]

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

[Repeal 16-17]

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.

[AGreatPer]

"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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Ginsburge is against it.

[bubbacluck]

To vote in Mexico you show a photo ID, your photo is on the voter roll at the polling place, and your finger is marked. Why can’t we do something similar here? Voter integrity is very high on my list of things that need to be done.

[Ymani Cricket]

well, she’s old and stuck in her ways, but I figure with ALL the grandkids being Republican, it sort of cancels her out. :D

[GovernmentShrinker]

The MSM acts like the only kind of “disenfranchisement” is when a voter who is eligible (but couldn’t be bothered to take the most basic steps to prove that) doesn’t get to vote. What about all the people who get disenfranchised when their votes are neutralized by the votes of people who were NOT eligible to vote?

[Kickass Conservative]

Now, if we can get rid of Motor Voter, the absolute worst voter fraud fiasco hoisted on this country by the Democrats.

In California, NOBODY verifies the citizenship of those who register to vote using the Motor Voter program. Fake birth certificate and fake S.S. number, NO PROBLEMO AMIGO...

I would venture a guess that at least 10% of the voters in California, my home State by the way, are not eligible to vote legally.

[boop]

"The former precinct committeewoman had difficulty rebuilding an identity trail, and still does not have a valid photo ID."

So she spent years taking this to the supreme court, when all she had to do was exert 1/100th of the effort to get a state ID. How was she "prevented" from getting the ID in the first place? She's freakin' 71 and "can't establish" her identity? How does she prove who she is to collect her social security check, or dare I ask?

[Bogtrotter52]

I was reading a DUmmie thread on this the other day. One opinion was (get ready for a major yuck) that unless states provide the cards for free, obtain a persons records needed for verification (birth cert., that sort of thing)....for free. And even provide money for postage needed by person...for free....it would be unconstitutional as it would still disenfrancise the “poor”. LOL! Let’s be real folks. Nothing would ever satisfy the left/dems/libs on this one. People who can provide I.D. to social agencies, check cashing services, etc. are suddenly unable to provide I.D. to vote.

[Bobbisox]

I could never understand why showing a photo ID to vote would be in any way unconsitutional. Is it unconstitutional to require a photo ID to board an airplane? Is it unconstitutional to require a photo ID to cash a check, open a savings account, secure a post office box, open a charge account? This is crazy...it is simply the liberal courts playing havoc with their authority. Besides, if you do not have a photo ID, what kind of voter would you make?

FRED THOMPSON - NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERIENCE (I’ll protect the American people and American values, whatever it takes to stop the Islamic-Fascists including water-boarding!) - 2ND AMENDMENT ADVOCATE (“Individual” rights to protect their homes and property!)

INCREASE THE MILITARY’S STRENGTH AND SIZE (Diplomacy through Strength and verification!)

SECURE AND SEAL THE BORDERS (Don’t give sanctuary anywhere to illegal’s; don’t employ illegal’s; don’t rent to illegal’s; don’t extend credit to illegal’s; don’t give illegal’s rights they have no right to; report all crimes committed by illegal’s to ICE and immediately deport those illegal’s who have already committed crimes against America!) LAW AND ORDER (Enforcement of our current laws regarding illegal immigration!) – DENY FEDERAL DOLLARS TO SANCTUARY CITIES (Enough is enough!)

CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES FOR SUPREMES (Great progress has been made on the Supreme Court in Bush’s term. FRED was asked by President Bush to spirit Justice Roberts through the confirmation process. The next President will probably have the opportunity to seat two additional Justices. This is huge folks. FRED will nominate Justices who will interpret the Constitution, not create rights that simply do not exist and legislate from the bench!) – PRO-LIFE ADVOCATE (will strive to nominate superior Justices with the eventual goal of overturning Roe vs Wade)

THOMPSON PLAN TO REDUCE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING (Check out his detailed plan to reduce Federal spending!)

SOCIAL SECURITY REFORMER (Social Security is an entitlement program that will soon overtake the budget. The program can’t sustain itself and will bankrupt future generations; FRED has detailed proposals to save Social Security and provide the added benefit of private savings accounts for younger workers!)

DEFEAT ANY DEMOCRAT OR RINO (Close your eyes and imagine the first debate between FRED THOMPSON and ANY liberal DemocRAT they put up?)

TAX SIMPLIFICATION (Reform and perhaps eliminate the IRS with a variety of choice for the tax payer!)

EDUCATION (Return education to the States. It is that simple. The NEA is the greatest enemy of our educational system!)

WON’T PUT UP WITH TRUTH MANIPULATION FROM THE DB-MSM (including stupid questions by liberal moderators, and “purchased” political pundits)

FRED THOMPSON IS THE “WE THE PEOPLE” CANDIDATE (We the People asked him to set aside his personal life and step up one more time for his Country…and he stepped up!)

THIRD IN IOWA, SECOND IN WYOMING (MSM still calling it a tie with McCain’s name in the lead…FoxNews won’t even mention his name if they can find a way to avoid it!)

TOTAL DELIGATES: 6 “FRED” ain’t DEAD, enough said!

[GovernmentShrinker]

It’s pretty hard to find most the people who need to be prosecuted for individual vote fraud. When somebody who has no ID and no eligibility for ID comes in and votes under a name which may or may not bear any resemblance to his/her real name, giving an address which may or may not bear any resemblance to any address at which they have ever actually resided, and is not required to be photographed and fingerprinted at the voting location, and then goes on his/her merry way, how the heck are they supposed to be found and prosecuted?

On the other hand, if someone who IS eligible has actually been prevented from voting, it’s very easy for that person to come forward and file a complaint. In most cases, they could also call police on the spot, and have police come over and witness the fact that they are not being permitted to vote, thus creating solid court-admissible evidence of the denial. But they don’t. Because there are no such would-be voters.

[My_Name_is_a_Number]

After they recover from their nervous breakdowns, here are some potential schemes the lefties might employ:

1. OUTLAW I.D.: The Second Amendment is not an individual right to keep and bear arms or identification. It is a collective right only for the state.
2. LOWER VOTING AGE: Anchor newborns given the right to vote. (May settle the abortion debate).
3. OUTSOURCE ELECTIONS: All U.S. elections held in Russia with Vlad (the impoisoner) as final official certifier.
4. ABOLISH ELECTIONS: Outdated relic of the past has outlived its usefulness in today’s society as per our living, breathing Constitution.
and, if all else fails...
5. BAN THE CONSTITUTION: As unconstitutional.

[Elsiejay]

I have wondered why the opposite of “enfranchise” is not “disfranchise.” Seemed logical to me, although I realize that logic does not always carry the day in language usage. Consulting my Webster’s Collegiate, Fifth Edition, I find that “disenfranchise” is defined in a single word, to wit, “disfranchise.”

Go figure!!