Court Throws Out Indiana Voter ID Law

theindychannel.com ^ | September 17, 2009

[allmendream]

It is most certainly NOT illegal to publicly pray in government schools.

My High School had a prayer meeting every morning at the flag pole and that is perfectly Constitutional so long as it is not required by or presided over by any government official.

You seem overly emotional on this subject, rather than rational; and apparently you see NO ROLE for the SCOTUS in discerning the proper outcome when laws and rights come into conflict.

[Jacquerie]

It is most certainly NOT illegal to publicly pray in government schools.

You pray in government schools only because the ACLU is unaware.

1962 Engel v. Vitale State sponsored prayer in government schools is outlawed in a controversial and dubious decision that was at odds with American history. If there was any doubt that professing one’s faith was no longer a God given right, the 1992 decision Lee v. Wiseman banned high school invocations and benedictions. Justice Kennedy found Constitutional protection for non-believers from “public pressure as well as peer pressure.” Thus, Scotus invented the right to not feel uncomfortable because of public expressions of faith by others.

Do you think these decisions were in accordance with the Constitution? Notice that Congress did not prohibit prayer in schools, Scotus did.

Your continued and illogical defense of Scotus as the ultimate defender of our God given rights is misplaced.

[Spacetrucker]

I have a hard time accepting your idea of eliminating absentee voting for it would prevent the military stationed overseas and away from their state of residence from voting...

[Jacquerie]

Say, what about our precious property rights?

Remember Kelo v. Connecticut?

Thanks to Scotus, private property was taken for private use in clear violation of the 5th Amendment.

So what are the people to do when courts violate the Law?

[allmendream]

The Courts, in Kelo vs New London, let STAND a State law that was (in both your, mine and several justices opinion) Unconstitutional.

Without the process of Judicial Review we would not have even had THAT chance of striking down the law.

Connecticut could decide to do whatever they wanted and Kelo would have had no recourse to challenge it.

Is that the system you envision?

[Jacquerie]

Outstanding!

You are starting to get it.

It is the duty of citizens through their reps to determine the constitutionality of the law.

[allmendream]

I am starting to get it that the system you envision allows Connecticut to do whatever they want, violate the Constitution at will, and that private citizens would have no recourse to challenge this in court?

[Arrowhead]

My thinking exactly. How can an state appeals court overturn a US Supreme Court decision? This will be a jurisdictional nightmare.

[Jacquerie]

Adios, I grow weary of hammering you.

Remember, there is no Constitutional basis for Judicial veto, or to make law as they did in Roe v. Wade and Lee v. Wiseman.

[allmendream]

You grow weary of avoiding the question.

No problem. It seems that tyranny of Congress and State Legislatures is perfectly acceptable to you, and that citizens should have no recourse to challenge their Unconstitutional actions in court.

[Finny]

Excellent -- thanks for posting that Walter Williams piece of nine years ago. It's even fresher today.

I get discouraged when I hear so many Republicans and conservatives pushing the idea of a leaner, more efficient government, rather than the CORRECT pursuit of LESS government. There's a major philosophical difference between the two, and the piece by Williams puts it plainly. Sadly, many Republicans and conservatives haven't yet made the fundamental philosophical distinction between "leaner government" and "less government." Walter Williams, even though he doesn't use those words, is one who does. I love Walter!

[whd507]

I was a committeeman in Indiana in 1990. I was the lone republican, with three Democrat women running the polling place. during the course of the day, we had at least three school buses of people who obviously didn't live in our precinct, and they stood in line and waited to be checked off by the “ladies” they had little cards telling them who they were, so they could vote. three full-size school buses (66 passenger buses, so figure 50 adults each) one group was even commenting how nice the previous polling place was, compared to our school basement location.

when I reported it to the republican headquarters at the end of the day, I was told “welcome to Indiana elections”

and yes I think that in federal elections, there should be federal ID rules. states would be free to do as they wish in state and local elections.

Missouri does/did have ID laws, I have always been asked for both my voter card and ID.

[null and void]

We need to fix that.

I favor purple fingers.

[pepsionice]

Actually...I’d go into court now and challenge the necessity of an ID for anything. Pack of smokes? Flask of whiskey? Ownership of a car? To cash a check? All of these should pass the same thought process and require no ID now.

Lets also review this...the US is apparently the only industrialized nation that has no universal health care program. Note, we are also the only industrialized nation that has no nation ID and also does not require any proof of ID to vote in a national election. Again, logic could a great discussion item in this case.

[Hacksaw]

No problem. It seems that tyranny of Congress and State Legislatures is perfectly acceptable to you, and that citizens should have no recourse to challenge their Unconstitutional actions in court.

What is our recourse to challenge the unconstitutional actions of a judge? Oh - there isn't one? Ooops.

[allmendream]

A better test case to overturn the ruling.

Judges can also be impeached.

[whd507]

INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that Indiana's voter identification law is unconstitutional.
6News is looking through the 29-page ruling now and will provide details from it as soon as possible.
The decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law in 2008, a week before the presidential primary, in a splintered 6-3 ruling.
Backers of the law, which requires a voter to present a photo identification to cast a ballot, said it curbs voter fraud.
Those against the law contend that it keeps poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
The law passed in 2005 with the ardent support of Gov. Mitch Daniels and other Republicans in state government.

The argument is that its not fair that absentee voters aren't held to the same standard as in-person voters. (Because the supreme court has already ruled that the way IDs are handled for in-person voters is permissible, so they are tossing up a bogus complaint that absentee ballots are treated differently. easy fix, ask for the same ID requirements for absentee ballots)
The supreme court has ruled that its permissible to ask for ID if the state allows for free ID for those without means.
(In this day and age, who can do anything without ID? How do you cash a check? get on a bus, or plane?)

Two thoughts,
1. Those of you in Indiana must contact your State legislator immediately , and change the absentee ballot process by adding a requirement to add a state ID number, and adding a state procedure wherein county registrars cross verify that the ID number matches the name and address. Military ID similar, asking them for military ID number on the affidavit.

2. Missouri residents, our voter ID law is related and similar enough that the folks that rely on voter fraud to get elected will encourage the ACLU to file a suit to throw our law out on similar grounds. So the same thing for us, call your state rep, explain the problem, and ask for a bill to standardize ballot access between in-person and absentee voters.

This will affect the 2010 mid-term elections if not fixed quickly.

If I am elected to the house of Representatives, my first effort will be to work to enact similar federal requirements for federal elections.

Dean Moore
www.deanmoore.us

[dools007]

I’m happy to hear that law and good sense may yet prevail in Indiana. It’s such an obvious attempt to encourage voter fraud one would think it would not even get as far as it did.

But that’s what happens after 30 years of a dumbed down and PC public school “education”.

[SunkenCiv]

The decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state's voter ID law in 2008, a week before the presidential primary, in a splintered 6-3 ruling. Backers of the law, which requires a voter to present a photo identification to cast a ballot, said it curbs voter fraud. Those against the law contend that it keeps poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

It keeps the poor and minority voters from casting multiple ballots, and keeps the homebound older voters (oh, and the deceased) from having votes cast in their names without their consent. And a 6-3 decision isn't "splintered", whatever partisan shill wrote that one.