Voter IDs on Supreme Court agenda

Voter IDs on Supreme Court agenda

By MARK SHERMAN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether voter identification laws unfairly deter the poor and minorities from voting, stepping into a contentious partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.

The justices will hear arguments early next year in a challenge to an Indiana law that requires voters to present photo ID before casting their ballots. The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.

The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana. The party argued that those voters tend to be Democrats.

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Georgia's voter identification law, saying the statute does not impose a significant burden on the right to vote.

Election law experts had urged the court to take the Indiana case to instruct courts on how to weigh claims of voter fraud versus those of disenfranchisement. "The court better resolve this question before ballots start getting counted next fall," said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan.

The court is expected to issue a decision by late June, in time for the November general election.

The Indiana law enacted in 2005 was upheld by a federal judge and by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Before the law's passage, an Indiana voter had only to sign a poll book at the polling place, where a photo copy of the voter's signature was kept on file for comparison.

"The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes," Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, "Let's not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic."

Bill Groth, an attorney who has represented the Indiana Democratic Party in the lawsuit, said he was thrilled that the nation's highest court will take up the case. He said the appeals court made light of the right to vote in its decision, but the Supreme Court has guarded that right more seriously.

"The court has over and over stressed that the right to vote should be protected, and any state law that burdens that right should be carefully and meticulously reviewed," Groth said.

The voter ID challenge was among 17 new cases accepted by the court in advance of the start of its new term on Monday.

The cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/ ... er_ID.html

Why are the Democrats defending voter fraud?

I'm sick of the disenfranchised voter excuse. These people have two years to get an identification before voting. If they can't accomplish that, then they are lazy, too incompetent or they really don't care enough to be voting.

I hope a whole lot of frivolous money is spent bringing this to court and every attorney and organization that is involved in this looses their shirts. The less money they have, the less trouble making they will be doing.

Don't donate to them and don't let your congressmen earmark your tax dollars for them either.

Who are the petioners on this case?

Dixie

This so needs to be upheld, but if history is an indicator it will not. The courts have historically come down on the side of placing no impediments on the voting process.

Old Courthouse joke: :lol:

Two men carrying flashlights were going through a cemetery one night taking down the names and birth dates from head stones. One of the men lingered too long at a headstone and his companion impatiently urged him to come on. With an air of indignation, the man responded "Just hold your horses; this man has got just as much right to vote as all the rest of these people." :lol:

If I have to show an ID to board an airplane I also should need it to vote.

This is a no-brainer to me.

If a legal resident doesn't have appropriate ID they can obtain it.

[quote="jean"]If I have to show an ID to board an airplane I also should need it to vote.
This is a no-brainer to me.

If a legal resident doesn't have appropriate ID they can obtain it.[/quote





This raises the big question for me: Are we really to believe that minorities and the poor are lacking Photo ID?

Don't minorities board planes? Do banking? Cash checks? Use credit cards? Don't they do anything at all in the course of daily life which requires a Photo ID?

And what of the poor........they require a Photo ID to obtain benefits, get assistance with food and utilities, cash whatever benefits checks they need, etc. now, don't they?

I also happen to know that many, if not all, states have a fee waiver for those who cannot absolutely afford an ID. Why is that? Because no one can do anything without one, that's why. Oh, that and because it is against the law not to carry an ID.

So really.....just who are these people trying to kid with this? The truth of the matter is that they want illegals to vote with no questions asked.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... =0&thold=0