The Supreme Court has upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification…
Resolving a partisan political battle, the country’s high court voted 6-3 to reject a legal challenge by Democrats that Indiana’s toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law would deter minorities, the elderly and others from casting ballots.
The main opinion agreed with Republican supporters that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud and safeguard public confidence in the integrity of elections. The Bush administration supported the law…
The decision could have broad national significance because more than 20 states have adopted voter identification laws and other states are considering similar legislation.
The law requires a government-issued photo ID such as a driver’s license to vote in federal, state and local elections.
I really like that part about safeguarding “confidence in the integrity of our elections”. Everyone feel safeguarded?
Why is this such a surprise? Why are people even pissing and moaning that they should have to show an ID in order to vote?
1 – Voting is not mandatory in the US, unlike other “democratic” nations like Argentina.
2 – Voting is still anonymous. Your name is nowhere near the ballot, and no one expects you to answer the question, “who’d you vote for?”
3 – It’s against the law for non-citizens, convicted felons and those with dishonorable discharges from the military to vote. How else are you going to verify this? Frankly, I don’t think the latter two groups should be banned from voting, but that’s still the current law.
Mac Guy, you beat me to it. I agree whole heartedly.
Yeah, the very same day Missouri voted against the ID. Very weird.
I supported this law but now I need to rethink this if the Bush administration supported it as well.
Voter fraud is way too easy to perpetrate as it is now. I know — I have done it. OTOH, I think most of the fraud is done by people with direct contact with the votes – poll workers, etc.
it’s about time. i can’t believe that anybody is allowed to vote without proving who you are. It’s too easy to walk up and read a name of the list and claim to be that person. Anybody could drive around all day long to polling places and pick a name and vote 20 to 30 times
I don’t get the reasoning against IDs to vote, I have to show a picture ID when I use my credit card to buy groceries.
I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age that there are people who don’t have a picture ID.
There are three basic documents that an American citizen should have: Picture ID, Social Security Card and a copy of thier birth certificate.
#3, good job thinking for yourself and not being just another one of the sheep.
Just common sense – no wonder the liberals have a hard time with it.
This is interesting, the Repukes OPPOSED Motor-Voter legislation several years ago !!! This would have added new drivers to the voter rolls automatically. Now they are for it ?
The Repukes KNOW THEY ARE A MINORITY PARTY and will throw whatever impediments they can in the way of WORKING PEOPLE getting registered to vote and to organize against Bush’s “BASE” of Millionaires and Billionaires who are LOOTING IN ALL DIRECTIONS !!!
#6;
“I have to show a picture ID when I use my credit card to buy groceries.”
No, you don’t. It’s not a legal requirement, you can shop somewhere else.
“I find it difficult to believe that in this day and age that there are people who don’t have a picture ID.”
Please name a state where having a state-issued ID is mandatory. I don’t believe you will be able to.
It’s been a long-standing tradition of this country to not require government papers for every citizen. This law effectively ends that if you want to exercise your right to vote. (Driving is not a right, hence the licensing.)
I think this is a crappy idea, and don’t see the need for it (what would be wrong with a non-photo form of ID like a birth certificate, SS card, or even a credit card??)
On the other hand, I don’t know how somebody can get by in life WITHOUT a photo ID, even if they don’t want to vote. I get asked for it all the time…when I cash a check, when I take money out of the bank, at the airport, when I use a credit card; they even require a photo ID to pick up your Amtrak train ticket nowadays.
#8;
Please explain why this is “common sense”.
#11;
I’m still waiting for an answer to my questions on the Atheism thread.
>>I’m still waiting for an answer to my
>>questions on the Atheism thread.
What questions? I stopped reading that thread after Mister Bobbolina talked me to death. Give post numbers if you want answers.
#9
Wow.. take a breath. Now, step back from the ledge…
Seriously, I don’t see how proving that you are the person you say you are in this modern age of identify theft and voter fraud as such an impediment to having fair elections.
I’ve always felt uneasy about not being asked to prove who I am at the polling station, and after witnessing the large amount of out of state license plates in the parking lot during the last local primary election I am definitely going to push for this type of law in my state.
I believe most “working people” have a drivers license or at least a photo ID. Every job I’ve had (sadly, I’m not a billionaire or even a millionaire, so I suppose I’m part of the “working class”) has asked for ID to accompany the W4 to prove legal work status.
I don’t drive, I take public trans. So no drivers license. SS card and birth cert don’t have a picture. I guess I just lost my right to vote.
I thought only the Gestapo need to see your papers….oh, wait…
Because the state charges money to get the photo IDs in the first place, this amounts to a Poll Tax which is forbidden in the constitution.
From what I read the Poll Tax objection was not addressed in the SCOTUS decision.
Eidard is consistently dopey, so much so that one wonders if he is just goading other dopey dudes like natefrog and jimd? If so, good job Eidard, if not you are indeed just dopey.
It would be nice if there was consistency about the issue. Why is it a concern that voters need ID, and not an equal concern for the need to secure electronic machines against fraud.
Genuine voter fraud doesn’t take place on the individual level but on the level of party controlled manipulations: whether it’s Florida repubs, or Chicago dems (yes the election was stolen for Kennedy in one and Bush in the other). It’s total BS to think that a single individual voting illegally one or more times is going to throw an election. You have to organize an effort by a political machine to get sufficient votes to make an impact.
If Indiana’s Republican controlled electoral system is concerned about vote fraud, shouldn’t they be be putting as much time and energy into making the various electronic voting machines used in Indiana secure and auditable? That’s been identified as the easiest way to steal an election since ward healers voted the graveyards (look it up).
Since Indiana is not really trying to control the most obvious source of potential fraud, this is a blatant a political ploy just like gerrymandering electoral districts.
#17, except for the fact that their is no “right” to vote. Don’t believe me? Point out where in the US constitution where it says you have the “right” to vote, its just not their.
And no, the 15th amendment does not give anyone the right to vote, it just says basically if you do have voting, you cannot discriminate on the account of race, and the 19th says you can’t discriminate on account of gender.
Its a shame so few people who are involved in the process do not even know how their government works.
#10 I’ve seen the Motor voter law in action. Just last month I sat waiting for those fine state employees to take my money and give me the little sticker for my cars.
I was there for over an hour. During that time I watched the 5 employees serve about 40 customers. That 40 was evenly split between white and black. Of the 20 blacks that were served everyone of them was asked if they would like to register to vote. Guess how many of the whites were asked. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
When my turn came and after I had been served I stood there and the lady asked if I needed something else. I said, “I’m just waiting for you to ask me if I want to register to vote.” All 5 employees looked at me with shock and the one waiting on me said, “Oh I’m sorry would you like to register? I can do that for you.” At which point I said, “No, I just wanted you to ask.”
A letter was written to both the Head of the Arkansas Dept. of Revenue and the Ark. Attorney Generals office before the day was out. No answer from either yet.
#21 Apparently you did not read the whole constitution. In plain english:
“Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.”
#21, also a republican form of government is guaranteed for the states.
The opposition to this is really that Democrats feel they are benefitting from vote fraud.
I think we can get rid of a lot more voter fraud by getting rid of Diebold. We need paper trail voting a lot more than we need voter ID. Lack of voter ID is not what gave Al Gore negative nineteen thousand votes!!
#1 – Mac Guy,
As for why we should oppose this, why not just read ACLU’s statement about it?
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/gen/35049prs20080428.html
#26 – MikeN,
If you believe that, you certainly must believe that the opposition to paper trail voting comes from repugnicans getting their votes handed to them by Diebold rather than the electorate.
#15,
See post #31. …Which you replied to and ignored the questions.
I’m with ArianeB. Governments should pay you to give you a photoID, not the other way around.
If the purpose were to prevent a person from voting twice, wouldn’t the sock hop rubber stamp on the back of the hand be more effective? People can have multiple photo IDs, or they can rent them from friends who look sufficiently similar …
Purple ink would be cheaper, quicker and more effective than this law, and it wouldn’t amount to a poll tax. Funny that the same people who gave us this law are in opposition to paper trails on e-voting machines and have over the last few weeks threatened to veto a bill requiring the -capability- to do a recount with evoting machines. Consistency is, indeed, the hobgoblin of little minds.
And despite all of this hoopla, Illinois was unable to show a single instance in which this law would have prevented fraud. So, it’s a law to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, which ignores the real sources of fraud (-19,000 votes is just the beginning of the oddities with e-voting over the past few elections) and introduces new problems for people who don’t drive.
Far too typical for this government, unfortunately.