High Court Approves Indiana Voter ID Law
Walmart Stores Inc.'s Chief Financial Officer Charles Holley presents fiscal year sales growth during the Walmart shareholders' meeting in Fayetteville, Ark., Friday, June 1, 2012. (AP Photo/April L. Brown) / April L Brown
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 deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
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.
"This is a big win for Republicans, who have fought all across the country for more stringent voting requirements. And it's a big loss for Democrats, who argued to the Justices that the restrictive law would preclude many of their voters from being able to exercise their right to choose a candidate," says CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen.
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.
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.
"We'll see lots of action now on this front in advance of the general election in November," Cohen says.
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.
"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."'
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. 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 deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.
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.
"This is a big win for Republicans, who have fought all across the country for more stringent voting requirements. And it's a big loss for Democrats, who argued to the Justices that the restrictive law would preclude many of their voters from being able to exercise their right to choose a candidate," says CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen.
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.
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.
"We'll see lots of action now on this front in advance of the general election in November," Cohen says.
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.
"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."'
Posted by mbcsmith at 02:12 PM : Apr 28, 2008"
Nope, they will all vote for McCain, thanks to Diebold.
They will not need to show an ID, not even to go to thge polls.
When they turn in their licnese
They get a state ID card..that they have to pay for.
I have always had a state ID card
Years ago they ask for a licnese
I don''t have one as a legally blind person I can''t drive however I have a state ID card
******************************************
I usually think Scalia is full of sh**, but this comment tops the pile. Many, many, elderly people do not have picture id''s because they quit driving. On election days, there are many services available for them to be able to get to the polls, but it will be up to them to "buy" a picture ID from the state. That means they have to go to the license bureau, have their picture taken, and then pay for it. They have to make arrangements to get there. I don''t know where Scalia thinks you can get an official picture ID for free. Of course, I really wonder if he lives on this planet most of the time.
Free ID Free bread Free healthcare Free TV Free Electricity Free Gas Free Transportation Free everything.
But, I do not have the strength to turn off the flintstones and get a free photo ID. Hmmmm ... You obviously did not grow up in a poor neighborhood.
The vote was 6 to 3. And one of the 3 felt in a state that has a history of election fraud (Pennsylvania leaps to mind) ... it was a good idea. Even the liberals do not agree with you!! Try Canada .... whoops ... you need ID to vote in Canada.
By Liz Sidoti, Associated Press
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a better chance than Barack Obama of beating Republican John McCain, according to a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable in the fall than her rival for the Democratic nomination.
The survey released Monday gives Clinton a fresh talking point as she works to convince pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.
Clinton, who won the Pennsylvania primary last week, has gained ground this month in a hypothetical head-to-head match up with the GOP nominee-in-waiting; she now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.
If every state gave out free picture ID''''s at the local supermarkets - that would be one thing. If you have to pay, or even have to drive a car to where you can pick one up - that is a poll tax pure and simple. They''''ve been outlawed since the ''''50''''s even in this country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by USBrit at 02:01 PM : Apr 28, 2008
LOL...LOL again. Free bread at Salvation Army. Free ID offered by most states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS at 01:41 PM : Apr 28, 2008
More like 15 million illegal aliens won''t vote in November.