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

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court upholds voter ID law (4/28/08)
http://lettingfreedomring.com/2012/02/25/supreme-court-upholds-voter-id-law/ ^ | 4/28/08 | From the Associated Press via MSNBC (4/28/08)

Posted on 03/12/2012 4:02:54 PM PDT by Jean S

The Supreme Court ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

‘Extremely disappointed’ More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Monday’s decision comes a week before Indiana’s presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn’t reviewed the decision, but he was “extremely disappointed” by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person’s right to vote “is the most important right.” The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law’s requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

Burden ‘eminently reasonable’ “We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” Stevens said.

Stevens’ opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana’s voter ID law “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, “The universally applicable requirements of Indiana’s voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not ‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.’”

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana; US: Texas; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: criticalracefairy; maybealittleblow; mymuslimfaith; soledad0brien; voterid; voterrights

1 posted on 03/12/2012 4:03:04 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Thank God there is still some sanity in this crazy upside down world.


2 posted on 03/12/2012 4:07:47 PM PDT by diamond6 (Check out: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/home.php and learn about the faith.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

If true, this is great news. WIll we see this news on MSM any time soon?


3 posted on 03/12/2012 4:08:55 PM PDT by entropy12 (Republicans do not hate, that is a monopoly of democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Shove it up your butt DOJ.


4 posted on 03/12/2012 4:08:59 PM PDT by boomop1 (term limits is the only way to save this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Outstanding! Just in time for Texas to tell the DOJ to stuff it!


5 posted on 03/12/2012 4:09:38 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
This is old news from 2008?
6 posted on 03/12/2012 4:12:23 PM PDT by entropy12 (Republicans do not hate, that is a monopoly of democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12; Jean S

I think John hasn’t been able to install the new servers... this is server lag...?


7 posted on 03/12/2012 4:14:49 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Spoiler Alert! The secret to Terra Nova: THEY ARE ALL DEAD!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise

Looks like its from 2008.


8 posted on 03/12/2012 4:14:57 PM PDT by MamaLucci
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Right. This happened a few years ago, so how does a lower court come up with the “unconstitutional” ruling today? As for the criminal DOJ, when are the states going to tell Holder and the gang to stick in their pipe and smoke it?!


9 posted on 03/12/2012 4:18:14 PM PDT by WXRGina (Further up and further in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12; Jean S

Yes it is and Jean S knows it because she typed it to post this article. A shame the idiot AG Holder doesn’t but he and his boss ignore laws and rulings if they don’t agree with them.


10 posted on 03/12/2012 4:18:46 PM PDT by jazusamo (Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Yes, this is a Supreme Court ruling from 2008, which is why I posted this to extended news with the date of the ruling in the title!
Sheesh.


11 posted on 03/12/2012 4:19:29 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci

Oops


12 posted on 03/12/2012 4:20:13 PM PDT by Enterprise ("Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
That was 2008, this is 2012! There are now different laws for Holder's “people” via Derrick Bell, Obama, and the Critical Race theory.
13 posted on 03/12/2012 4:25:17 PM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S
O would say Obama is going to lose in Texas. Since the object as stated in the case is to uphold the integrity of the elections, the ID requirement is not prejudicial...everyone must comply.

Hillary fought against the ID bit as NY senator.

14 posted on 03/12/2012 4:25:49 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: entropy12
This is old news from 2008?

Yes, it is, which is why I included the date of the U.S. Supreme Court's original ruling about voter I.D. in the title.

15 posted on 03/12/2012 4:27:52 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

How odd that people get so excited about the title that they can’t even finish reading it.. 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008 !!!!!! The States should rush the DOJ’s ruling on Voter ID laws to the SCOTUS for ‘fast track’ review. This will definitely impact the 2012 election. If there is one. I think we should do our elections the same way MEXICANS IN MEXICO DO.. MANDATORY VOTER ID AT THE POLLS!


16 posted on 03/12/2012 4:29:04 PM PDT by FedsRStealingOurCountryFromUs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Why is it such a burden for John Doe, when he shows up to vote, shows some form of identification that he is the John Doe listed on the voter registration role? How is that a burden?


17 posted on 03/12/2012 4:34:35 PM PDT by ops33 (Senior Master Sergeant, USAF (Retired))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diamond6

Well if so how can Holder stop the voting law? Does Texas have to go back to court


18 posted on 03/12/2012 4:34:35 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Yes. The laws of physics have changed. Up is down, down is up, black is white, white is black, wrong is right, right is wrong.

"Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Isa. 5:20)

19 posted on 03/12/2012 4:35:22 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: avacado
Speaking of Bell, have you read this? An excellent article.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/the_book_of_obama_the_ganza_megillah.html

20 posted on 03/12/2012 4:47:52 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Sorry, I don’t know why the link doesn’t work.

The Book of Obama: The Ganza Megillah
By Clarice Feldman

@ AmericanThinker.com


21 posted on 03/12/2012 4:53:22 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

...In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud...

So how the heck can Holder get away with blocking similar state laws? This should be an impeachable offense.


22 posted on 03/12/2012 4:59:00 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

Thank you!!!

P.S. some people are not to bright...


23 posted on 03/12/2012 5:05:09 PM PDT by phockthis (http://www.supremelaw.org/fedzone11/index.htm ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

What are interactions with the government that require Photo ID?

Gun ownership

Driving.

What else?

Thank you.


24 posted on 03/12/2012 5:33:30 PM PDT by NoLibZone (Liberal concern for womens rights is fake. I submit their love of Bill Maher as proof.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Library card.

Animal licensing.

SS card.


25 posted on 03/12/2012 5:46:50 PM PDT by Politicalmom (Lazamataz for president!! NO MORE RINOS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

According to the libs, some Constitutional rights are more equal than others.
In Wisconsin the 2nd amendment is ok as long as you take a class, pay a fee and go through a background check.

Why do voting rights trump 2nd amendment rights?


26 posted on 03/12/2012 5:49:20 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

You did it right, my bad for getting excited about the news and jumping into your post.

So why is that blockhead Obama’s AG objecting to TX ID law?
This regime really needs to go. I do not care if the GOP nominates a rabid dog, I will vote for the dog.


27 posted on 03/12/2012 6:21:17 PM PDT by entropy12 (Republicans do not hate, that is a monopoly of democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Flying on any public flight, entering US LEGALLY, getting a library card at our city library, acquiring marriage license, applying for passport, when stopped for traffic violation, etc.


28 posted on 03/12/2012 6:26:11 PM PDT by entropy12 (Republicans do not hate, that is a monopoly of democrats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: entropy12

Not a problem!

This started last week when a Madison WI judge ruled our legally pased voter id law invalid. Now this with Texas.

Judges own us! Why even bother passing laws when a single judge, or the Obama adminstration can overrule anything. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on this, doesn’t matter to these people.


29 posted on 03/12/2012 6:34:20 PM PDT by Jean S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Jean S; Hunton Peck; Diana in Wisconsin; P from Sheb; Shady; DonkeyBonker; Wisconsinlady; JPG; ...

2008 USSC Decision on Voter ID

FReep Mail me if you want on, or off, this Wisconsin interest ping list.


30 posted on 03/12/2012 7:49:51 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jean S

bfl


31 posted on 03/12/2012 10:39:48 PM PDT by llandres (Forget the "New America" - restore the original one!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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