U.S. Supreme Court: Ariz. can seek photo ID for vote

AP Wire via Contra Costa Times ^ | 10-20-06 | Mark Sherman

[Babu]

24 minutes ago: WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Arizona may require voters to provide photo IDs when they cast their ballots next month.

The justices cautioned that they were not issuing a ruling on the constitutionality of Arizona's law. "As we have noted, the facts in these cases are hotly contested," the court said in an unsigned five-page order.

The ruling merely allows the Nov. 7 election to proceed with the photo ID law in place. Federal courts still will have to resolve a lawsuit contending that the law will disenfranchise numerous voters, particularly the elderly and minorities.

Courts in Georgia and Missouri have blocked similar laws.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in a brief concurring opinion, said the high court's action makes it more likely that the constitutional issues "will be resolved correctly on the basis of historical facts rather than speculation."

The law requires voters to prove citizenship when registering to vote and to show photo IDs when they go to the polls. The law was meant to make sure illegal immigrants weren't casting ballots.

Opponents of the law contend it discourages some people from voting, including the elderly, poor and disadvantaged who don't always carry IDs. Arizona residents, Indian tribes and community groups filed suit in May.

A federal judge ruled the state could enforce the law. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals later blocked it from taking effect for the Nov. 7 election.

In his bid to allow the state to go forward, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard told the justices that "voter registration at the polls is an emerging issue of national importance. States have a compelling interest in curbing fraud and protecting the integrity of elections."

Voters without proper ID may cast provisional ballots and furnish identification within five business days of the election.

Lacking photo identification, voters still can cast ballots during the state's early voting period. State officials said there is ample time to compare signatures on the ballot with those on registration rolls.

[Salvation]

I sure hope this catches on in other states.

[Smartass]

The ruling, by far is not a silver cure all bullet, however a start in the right direction to bring honesty back into our election process.

The court's ruling left the door open in many areas though:
Their ruling in part...
"“A State indisputably has a compelling interest in pre- serving the integrity of its election process.” Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Comm., 489 U. S. 214, 231 (1989). Confidence in the integrity of our elec-toral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised."

 

[Colorado Buckeye]

I'm proud to be able to say that here in Colorado we have to show a photo ID in order to vote at the polls.

My understanding is that that is not correct. All you need in Colorado is a copy of a utility bill with your name and address on it. I'm sure it's hard to fake those.

When it comes to open borders, illegals, and our political class, don't ever underestimate the capacity and willingness of the latter to use duplicity. Always read the fine print; look for the inevitable loopholes.

[HiJinx]

It's amazing how the truth gets distorted. What family I have left in Phoenix is probably just as misinformed.

[A CA Guy]

This is good, and they need to also get around to purging all the state rolls to verify people are legal, alive or existing at all.

[HiJinx]

I mentioned to my County Recorder that she needed to do just that...she agreed, but Prop 200 did not include that provision.

That's next.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

How will citizens who are old or of nonEuropean extraction be disenfranchised? The rules are the same for all people. (rhetorical question).

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Don't the elderly vote in large numbers?

[Arizona Carolyn]

Wahoooooo

[Arizona Carolyn]

This is why we vote all R's next month. We need one more conservative SCOTUS

[TheDon]

Thanks President Bush!

[Doofer]

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Arizona may require voters to provide photo IDs when they cast their ballots next month.

The horror, the horror of it all...

[Alex1977]

Please, add New Mexico (at least) to your list. ;-))

[zerosix]

Don't remember the status of GA but in MO, first the law was struck down by liberal judge near State Capitol, Jefferson City, the appealed to MO Supremes, who, very recently refused to overturn District Judge (Lawyer in a black robe.)

If this were some liberal abomination, everyone would claim that ruling was "precedent" covering all other similar suits but since the very idea of proving that you are voting legally, is now considered a "right wing conservative trick to disenfranchise the poor and minority."

Will this crap ever end, at least in my lifetime, I certainly pray for that day.

[Babu]

As far as the poor, most states have photo ids available at the motor vehicle, or town halls, for fee or a couple dollars.

Here in Arizona, the Motor Vehicle Department gave my elderly mother a picture ID for free!

[Goldwater and Gingrich]

This just means that Terry will be running for gov next time as a dem.

[PghBaldy]

The elderly vote.

[PghBaldy]

Funny analogy.

[PghBaldy]

Is that true? I knew Dems are fools, but that is just kooky. Please Please don't let them win anything.

[texastoo]

Carrying a cell phone with camera would stop some illegals activity.