Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Bulldogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    On Duty Alamo, California
    Posts
    2,141

    Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

    Hope this is not a re-post.

    Last updated April 28, 2008 8:00 a.m. PT
    Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

    By MARK SHERMAN
    ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

    WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday 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.

    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.

    "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.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... ource=mypi

  2. #2
    MW
    MW is offline
    Senior Member MW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,717
    This is very good news!

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" ** Edmund Burke**

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts athttps://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  3. #3
    Senior Member miguelina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    9,253
    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.
    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.
    Well, that should take care of that argument nicely then.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
    "

  4. #4
    Senior Member Captainron's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,279
    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
    "Men of low degree are vanity, Men of high degree are a lie. " David
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #5
    Senior Member bigtex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    3,362
    Fantastic news! This was one of the referendums the Republican party in Texas voted on. Glad this issue is taken care of once and for all.
    Certified Member
    The Sons of the Republic of Texas

  6. #6
    Senior Member 93camaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    You want some of this?
    Posts
    2,986
    This is Huge!!!! Without Illegals bieng able to vote this will put the open boarders Democrats in a wedge, they seem to want all these IA's for just votes but take away those votes and those people stop meaning something to them. Then with enough states on board they will lose tons of votes and turn on their precious Illegals.
    Work Harder Millions on Welfare Depend on You!

  7. #7
    Senior Member Bulldogger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    On Duty Alamo, California
    Posts
    2,141
    This is Huge!!!!
    Yes it is, Rush is talking about it now.

  8. #8
    Senior Member SOSADFORUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    IDAHO
    Posts
    19,570
    This is great news, now we need every state to make it law and that won't be easy with some states like Calif, etc. At least the supreme court did what is right!
    Please support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)

  9. #9
    Administrator Jean's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    65,443
    Fantastic! I have to show a photo ID to board an airplane, the same should apply when voting. Just seems like common sense to me to prove who you are, period!
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    776
    Fantastic !

    This Supreme Court seems to be getting it right on some recent issues seems refreshing that part of our government actualy works as was intended.
    We can't deport them all ? Just think of the fun we could have trying!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •