Commentary: The partisan elephant unnoticed in the room

SCOTUS Blog ^ | Wednesday, January 9th, 2008 12:18 pm | Lyle Denniston

[thecodont]

The Supreme Court, studiously avoiding almost all mention that it was examining a thoroughly partisan political battle, spent a spirited hour on Wednesday looking for ways either to scuttle a major test case over voters’ rights or to find a way — as if the Justices were writing a law themselves — to soften the impact of a tough state requirement for a photo ID before a voter may cast a ballot at the polls.

Only two Justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens — even hinted at the real-world fact that the photo ID law in Indiana is at the heart of a bitter, ongoing contest reaching well beyond Indiana. It is a dispute between Republicans worried over election fraud supposedly generated by Democrats to pad their votes, and Democrats worried over voter suppression supposedly promoted by Republicans to cut down their opposition. The abiding question at the end: can a decision be written that does not itself sound like a political, rather than a judicial, tract? Can the Court, in short, avoid at least the appearance of another Bush v. Gore?

At issue in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25) is the constitutionality of a 2005 Indiana law that voters who show up at the polls without a photo ID will be allowed only to cast a provisional ballot, to be validated later at another place only if they can travel there and then prove identity. It has been upheld by the Seventh Circuit Court, leading to appeals to the Supreme Court by Democrats or their state party apparatus.

[hinckley buzzard]

If you can require a picture ID to buy booze or to drive a car why not to vote. That is why this issue is purely political and not constitutional. The SC should never have taken the case, but let the appellate ruling stand.

[Ken522]

So voters have to prove their identity ... what is so controversial about that?

[therut]

If I have to show an ID and pass a background check to buy a firearms at an FFL then what is the big deal about this? One a guaranteed enumerated RIGHT and the other a qusi-right by statue not Constitutional. Our USSC has really screwed up this country over the years.

[facedown]

The abiding question at the end: can a decision be written that does not itself sound like a political, rather than a judicial, tract?

No, because it is a political matter.

[thecodont]

This article posting is a reply to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2162695/posts?q=1&;page=1 . See my post (#42).

___________________________

Let's try to get inside the mind of the SCOTUS as it's operating right now. What's grabbing their attention?

SCOTUSblog.com has decided to hear Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita as consolidated cases. These cases concern voter ID guidelines and voting rights.

Take a look at how the Justices are split on this issue.

I'll post this as a separate article ("The Partisan Elephant in the Room") because I think it has a bearing on the fortunes of the BO natural-born qualification cases currently before SCOTUS.

___________________________

[nbhunt]

TOUGH? FOR WHO? What, pray tell, is so friggin tough about that? It will be tough to vote 2-3 times,WITH A BIG MAYBE. Tough for illegals, but for NORMAL LEGAL cititizens, a drop in the bucket. Come off of it Justices, give us a friggin break. Utterly amazing how VERY VERY STUPID THESE Justices can be.

[Oldexpat]

You need a photo ID to use a Credit Card in CA.

[SECURE AMERICA]

Someone needs to explain to me how ANYONE can consider proving you are who you claim to be is a hinderance to voting suprsses legit voting or in any manner is a violation of a CITIZENS rights.
I don’t want some dirtbag that ACORN signed up registering as me and casting a fraudulent vote that disqualifies my legit vote.

[jusduat]

Political is all it is. I’m tired of my vote being diluted
by the uninformed, emotional, handout types, dead voters,
and koolaid drinkers. I think that not only ID but some
other requirements should be placed on voters. We don’t
allow children to vote, so why should someone who can’t
even understand the issues, be allowed to vote once or
twice?

[thecodont]

Someone needs to explain to me how ANYONE can consider proving you are who you claim to be is a hinderance to voting suprsses legit voting or in any manner is a violation of a CITIZENS rights.

Emphasis added.

Now, just substitute "presidential candidate" for "you" in that sentence, and it seems that suddenly new light is shed on the current silence from SCOTUS on the BO natural-born certification cases.

[Dan(9698)]

You need a photo ID to use a Credit Card in CA.

You need a photo ID to buy decongestant pills.

[yorkie01]

Look at the perceived and often real voter fraud, particularly from the left (deft) and the inherent dangers of stolen elections are enormous. Not only is id required but significant changes to election software including scrubbing the database every whichway to catch the perpetrators and criminally prosecute them. Let’s put ACORN out of business.

[oldbrowser]

If you can require a picture ID to buy booze or to drive a car why not to vote.

Because once you open the door, there will be no stopping it. requirements will be used by partisan to increase their advantage. The problem here is that democracy requires honest people to function. Look at the mess they have in Minnesota with many of the precincts having more votes than voters.

I believe we have outgrown our system of government. It was designed for God fearing, patriotic, salt of the earth type people.

[ridesthemiles]

You need a photo ID to use a Credit Card in CA.
You need a photo ID to buy decongestant pills.”

Same here in Nevada.
Took me 27 minutes to go thru the hoops to buy 2 packages of generic Sudafed at Wal-Mart a month ago.
The lady couldn’t accept the fact that I hadn’t bought any since 2001. Asked me for any other names/aliases I had ever had. I didn’t go into the fact that I was married twice- 1958 and 1977. Probably not inside the realm of her computer records. Made me totally aware of buying all my ammo with cash, tho.

[DoughtyOne]

I know I am in the minority around here on this issue, but I do not want our driver’s licenses to be a national ID card. I believe the federal government will abuse a nation ID card, the first chance it gets.

Yes, it would be nice to have an ID at the polls. There will be plenty down side in time to make that one good thing, not worth the trouble. And then there’s the ability to buy a fraudulent ID down the block.

This nation somehow got to this point without a national ID. We don’t need one now.

Folks, the real problem with voting is not the ID. It’s the instant or blind registration. It’s the open primary elections. It’s allowing folks to vote for two weeks to a month prior to election day. It is also the primary process itself, that is gamed to the point that we see incompetents selected to be the party standard bearer before 0.25% of the populace has even voted.

There is also obviously a problem with votes that appear days or weeks after the election, supposedly put aside and lost until they are found.

We’ve got plenty of problems to deal with BEFORE we go desperate and demand an ID card.

[Eternally-Optimistic]

The point is that if someone votes illegally then my vote may be cancelled out. Or if they do it multiple times then it is even a worse case. Voting is a privilege not a right just like driving a car is a privilege.
The states should have the opportunity to establish their own requirements if they feel the federal requirements are too lax. After all the person being elected is to REPRESENT the people.
The deal in MN changes a lot of things for us all. Not just for the people of MN.
If more votes than voters then because of the secret ballot requirements the whole deal should be thrown out and a new election ordered or there should be no one seated in a national office.
In the case of OB if there is even a hint that he is not qualified then that must be resolved before he is allowed to be seated as president.
It is truly time for a Constitutional amendment to establish term limits for all levels of elected government including the courts.

[rawcatslyentist]

I think that not only ID but some other requirements should be placed on voters

Works for me!

[DoughtyOne]

The point is that if someone votes illegally then my vote may be cancelled out. Or if they do it multiple times then it is even a worse case.  I don't approve of that any more than you do.  If we tightened up all the other measures, then  we're not going to have the problem you think, with double voting.  Pricincts should be small enough where the voting staff would know almost every voter.  As it is today, there are voting centers where literally thousands of people from a broad area vote.  We should work on that.

Voting is a privilege not a right just like driving a car is a privilege.  Does your constitution provide for free association?  Mine does.  Using your feet, your horse, your horse and buggy, your bicycle, a motorcycle, or even a motor vehicle is protected under your right to assemble.  If you relegate this to the state, then the state has the right to cut your freedom of association by about 75 to 90% on a whim.  I do not agree that the state has that right.  Driving a vehicle is a right.  It may be a right that can be infringed upon for cause, but it is most certainly a right.

Failing to do something that would disqualify you from driving, you have a Constitutional right to use your vehicle to travel for assembly or any other use.  Would the state also have a right to tell you how many steps you could take during any given day?  No.  Then by extension, it doesnt' have the right to grant or deny permission to travel by vehicle without cause.  It is your right.

What makes the use of your car different than your possession and use of a weapon?  Should the state be able to tell you that you cannot carry a weapon to protect yourself?  I mean, we could just as easily say carrying a weapon is a privilege.  Do you believe that it is?  Most of us don't think so, if my ear to the ground is accurate.  Should the state tell us that our freedom of speech is a privilege?

The states should have the opportunity to establish their own requirements if they feel the federal requirements are too lax. After all the person being elected is to REPRESENT the people.  The deal in MN changes a lot of things for us all. Not just for the people of MN.  If more votes than voters then because of the secret ballot requirements the whole deal should be thrown out and a new election ordered or there should be no one seated in a national office.  I heartily agree.  At present we are allowing people to register to vote too easily.  If a person tries to register from a fraudulent address, the board of registrars should catch it.  They have databases on address, and other people who are registered at that address.  It shouldn't be all that difficult to spot a phony registration.  The trouble is, we don't spend enough time questioning registrations.

In the case of OB if there is even a hint that he is not qualified then that must be resolved before he is allowed to be seated as president.  I completely agree with that.  He shouldn't be able to get on a single state ballot, until he has proven without a doubt that he is a citizen.  And it would have been a great idea for folks to challenge him at the state level in every state, right from the start.

It is truly time for a Constitutional amendment to establish term limits for all levels of elected government including the courts.  At the political level, I agree.  At the judicial level there are pros and cons with this.  How would you like having Obama make the nominations to replace half the present Supreme Court?

I forsee a day when the federal government will seek to try to tell people whether they can buy or sell.  It may come in the form of trying to do away with illegal immigration.  It may be politically motivated.  When it does come, and I firmly believe it will, the original excuse will be expanded so that a form of political or ideological purge can be executed.  I want to stay as far away from making the possible, as I possibly can.

IMO, we are a safer more sane state, when the government is as removed from our momentary lives as possible.  A show me your papers state, is a dangerous state.

[NinoFan]

This is over a year old. The Court issued its ruling in April 2008.