High Court To Review Voter I.D. Law

Dems, Civil Rights Groups Say Law Discourages Poor And Minorities From Voting

(AP)  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.

[smartmoney70]

I don''t care what party you do or don''t belong to or how your opinion guides your vote, you should be required to show identification that is verifiable at the time of voting, and not suspect to fraud. Let''s move on and get over the ''disenfranchising Democatic voters ***'' and settle the issue. No ID, no vote. If it is that big of a deal to get an ID, then let the D.O.T. of each state issue a picture only ID to anyone who is legal to vote, can prove who they are, and then back bill the federal government''s public funding for elections. Oh yea, and let''s pick the people up at their front door and walk them in arm to the front of the line and give them coffee, tea and crumpets as an apology for making them actually do something other than drown in their sea of dispair. If you can get out to vote, you can get out to get an ID.
How else do you prevent voter fraud? By the person''s conscience and morals? In that case, if I honestly feel I should have more than one vote as I am important, or disenfranchised, or special, or whatever and don''t see it as a moral wrong, I''m voting early and often. Better yet, let me vote by internet so I can write a program to do it for me.

[jsmithcsa]

I admit that I don''t understand the argument of those who oppose showing ID. Either you are who you say you are, or you''re not. Anyone can claim to be anyone, and while photo ID isn''t perfect (it can be faked), it seems to me to be a reasonable request.

I don''t agree with Judge Evans at all -- I don''t see how a law that requires all voters to prove their identity is anti-Democratic Party. If we only asked minorities to show ID, he would be right and I would oppose it. In every case though, the law has required all voters to prove their identification -- rich and poor, white and black. How anyone can see that as predujucial is inconcievable to me.

[signof4]

If blacks oppose it, I''m for it. That''s all I need to know. The only people who are for this are for dead people having the right to vote - several times. In other words, lying democrats.

[getloud1]

Are You Mad As H3LL Like Me Join A Local Meetup Group In Your City Today And Be Heard. Join The Millions In The New ReVoLuTiOn To Take America Back! Actions Speak Louder Than Words! Go To: http://ronpaul.meetup.com/cities/

[usbrit-2009]

When all ID''s are completely free and available to all citizens then OK. While the states charge $''s for ID''s, this is no better than a poll tax.

As for signof4 - just take your bigoted little brain back to Fox News where no doubt you came from, and leave this site to those with IQ''s higher than their age.

[sftodd]

In that case, if I honestly feel I should have more than one vote as I am important, or disenfranchised, or special, or whatever and don''''t see it as a moral wrong, I''''m voting early and often. Better yet, let me vote by internet so I can write a program to do it for me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by smartmoney70 at 01:52 PM : Sep 25, 2007

How funny -- you are trying to be sarcastic, but that''s exactly what repuglicans are trying to do. They want internet voting yesterday, so they can fix every future election that is close or that matters.

[abbe91]

"How else do you prevent voter fraud?
Posted by smartmoney70 at 01:52 PM : Sep 25, 2007"

By getting rid of Diebold machines and paperless voting.

[abbe91]

"The only people who are for this are for dead people having the right to vote - several times.
Posted by SignOf4 at 02:52 PM : Sep 25, 2007"

Like these guys in Franklin county, Ohio ?

"According to the AP, "Franklin County''s unofficial results had Bush receiving 4,258 votes to Democrat John Kerry''s 260 votes in a precinct in Gahanna. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Bush''s total should have been recorded as 365."

[motherjones-2009]

Getting a picture ID isn''t that easy. It''s not free, a birth certificate is required, and in some cases, people must travel to the county seat to apply. My grandmother is 81 years old, never got a driver''s license, and does not have a picture ID. The folks at the bank have known her for years and happily cash her Social security checks. She was born at home and doesn''t know where her birth ceticiate is. Actually she doesn;t know if she ever had a birth certificate. Grandma has voted in every important election since 1948. Why is Grandma''s right to vote being stolen from her unless she jumps through a bunch of hoops?

[lostcountry1]

the femocrats are unhappy with this because it will prevent all of the illegals,(mexicans), from being allowed to vote. it should be implemented for all of the right reasons.if you cant, or wont prove that you are a legal american voter, then you shouldnt have a vot on the issues facing america.maybe the femocrats should focus on the americans already here, instead of trying to sell them out for illegals!

[tucano2]

Gee, if we had had voter ID in 1960 the dead "voters" in Chicago would have been excluded, and JFK would have been defeated.