JREGrassroots > Voter ID law heads to Supreme Court

Full Version: Voter ID law heads to Supreme Court

JREGrassroots > General Politics > General Political News

ncMindy

Dec 30 2007, 10:47 PM

QUOTE

Voter ID law heads to Supreme Court

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Sun Dec 30, 12:15 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The dispute over Indiana's voter identification law that is headed to the Supreme Court next week is as much a partisan political drama as a legal tussle.

The mainly Republican backers of the law, including the Bush administration, say state-produced photo identification is a prudent measure to cut down on vote fraud — even though Indiana has never had a prosecution of the kind of fraud the law is supposed to prevent.

The opponents, mainly Democrats, view voter ID a modern-day poll tax that disproportionately affect poor, minority and elderly voters — who tend to back Democrats. Yet, a federal judge found that opponents of the law were unable to produce evidence of a single Indiana resident who had been barred from voting because of the law.
...
A decision should come by late June, in time to be felt in the November elections in Indiana and in Georgia, the other state with a strict photo ID requirement, as well as in a handful of other states.

LINK

Emphasis mine. Just in time for the '08 election.

judykratochvil

Jan 3 2008, 03:47 PM

I can't recall Illinois having a case of the fraud that a law like the Indiana law would prevent. Although we are famous because our dead people vote.

ncMindy

Jan 4 2008, 10:04 PM

Judy, I think this could be a big problem for Dems, in general. The SCOTUS should wait and see, but I'm not sure they will. Photo ID could be a big issue, depending of the cost and how it's implemented for the '08 election.

QUOTE

Voter ID Court Challenges Expected to Have Big Impact on 2008 Elections

The standard of review that the Supreme Court is expected to outline in the cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party et al. v. Rokita et al., would then apply in other legal challenges to voter identification requirements across the nation.

"It could potentially transform election law in this country," said Deborah Goldberg of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's School of Law, who opposes the Indiana statute.

Both sides have been forced to rely on thin empirical evidence. While Indiana cannot cite any cases of preventable voter fraud, neither can the law's challengers point to specific people who would not be able to vote because of the law, which has not taken effect.
...
The Indiana cases will be argued before the court amid a heightened partisan atmosphere regarding voting regulations since the closely contested 2000 presidential election.

Republicans have tended to favor new voter identification laws, which critics say disproportionately affect lower-income - and mostly Democratic - voters. Democrats have pushed for laws such as election- day registration aimed at making it easier for people to vote.

Other controversies are swirling around the November elections as well, such as questions about the reliability of touch-screen voting and allegations that secretaries of state, the officials responsible for regulating elections, are too partisan.

judykratochvil

Jan 5 2008, 07:12 AM

It would be a big deal in Chicago as well where we have many poor people (black & White). The only question isn't about its effect on poor people. Even middle class people may have a hard time paying for the ID if it is too expensive.

xpanshun

Jan 5 2008, 06:19 PM

I have no problem with the idea of requiring a photo ID, but if they are going to
require one for voting, there needs to be an option--perhaps the standard state
id or a new voting ID which would only be good FOR voting (essentially you'd say
that you need an ID when you registered and that's all it would be valid for)--which
is provided FREE OF CHARGE.

In fact, I've always thought that states that require by law that you carry a state
issued ID of some sort, but then CHARGE you for that ID are just using that as
another way to fill the state coffers and/or their own pockets. Don't require something
by law that costs money unless you have 0% unemployment and have no citizens
in your state living on the streets or in back alleys. I don't think that any state can
come close to claiming they fill those requirements.

judykratochvil

Jan 6 2008, 06:24 AM

QUOTE (xpanshun @ Jan 5 2008, 08:19 PM)

I agree. If they want to require an voting ID then it should be fre of charge.

ncMindy

Jan 7 2008, 08:24 PM

She IS the evidence. It's people like Valerie Williams who help give other people the inspiration to fight.
Voter Purging...IMHO.

QUOTE

Indianapolis - In April 2006, a federal judge upheld Indiana's law on voter identification, the strictest in the nation, saying there was no evidence that it would prevent any voter from having his ballot counted.

But on Election Day last November, Valerie Williams became that evidence, according to lawyers in a case that will be argued before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. After Ms. Williams grabbed her cane that day and walked into the polling station in the lobby of her retirement home to vote, as she has done in at least the last two elections, she was barred from doing so.

The election officials at the polling place, whom she had known for years, told her she could not cast a regular ballot. They said the forms of identification she had always used - a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver's license - were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.

"Of course I threw a fit," said Ms. Williams, 61, who was made to cast a provisional ballot instead, which, according to voting records, was never counted. Ms. Williams - who has difficulty walking - said she was not able to get a ride to the voting office to prove her identity within 10 days as required under the law, and her ballot was discarded.

The incident is at the heart of the highly anticipated case, which challenges the constitutionality of the Indiana law and, according to Daniel P. Tokaji, a professor of law at Ohio State University, is "the most important case involving the mechanics of election administration in decades."

Voter ID Laws Are Set to Face Strictest Test

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.