Federal judge orders party registration, vote ID for Mississippi

[Maddy McCall]

Source: AP

JACKSON — The state of Mississippi must have a party registration system and voter identification law in place for the 2008 elections, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge W. Allen Pepper said political parties have a right to stop non-party members from voting in their primary elections. He said party registration and voter ID would do that.

Pepper ruled late Friday in a lawsuit filed in 2006 by plaintiffs wanting to stop non-Democrats from voting in Democratic primary elections. The Mississippi Republican Party was not involved in the lawsuit, but Pepper said his decision applies to all party primaries in the state.

snip/

Pepper said voters must re-register and carry a party registration party and a photo ID to the polls in primary elections. Pepper said voters not wanting to register by party can designate themselves as unaffiliated, or independents.

snip/

Opponents say there’s no proof that people have been masquerading as others at the polls. They also say that requiring ID could intimidate older black Mississippians, who for decades faced poll taxes and other Jim Crow laws that kept them from voting.





Read more: http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070609/NEWS/70609014

---

Look for more federal judges to force other states into voter ID requirements.

[tomhayes]

1. Wow, this seem unconstitutional

Can it be overturned in time for the elections?

[Maddy McCall]

2. I'm worried about the order that voters must re-register...

as much as I am about the photo ID requirement.

This plan has to be submitted to the Justice Department. It'll be interesting to see how it fares.

[Kool Kitty]

6. Gee, I wonder what THIS Justice Department

will do. I'll bet I already know. This is very worrisome.

[Kagemusha]

8. Question. Does this ruling apply ONLY to primaries?

Frankly, not sure it would matter even if it does. The reasoning used here can be very quickly applied to try to force this for the actual election vote.

[Maddy McCall]

18. Yeah, I think so.

[Boo Boo]

3. I think the required ID part will be struck down.

Is there any place in the U.S. where a voter ID law has survived?

[LiberalFighter]

12. It was upheld in Indiana unfortunately

[Maddy McCall]

19. Struck down in Georgia, though.

[EFerrari]

4. This is vote suppression and it needs to be confronted.

:mad:

[MS Liberal]

5. I think it is a good idea.

I live in the great state of Mississippi and I think it is an excellent idea. I hate Republicans voting in the Democratic Primary. In Mississippi we have enough DINO in the party without having Republicans voting in our primary.

The state party recently tried to keep state DINO party holders from running in the primary. These DINOs openly supported George Bush in the 2004 election. I have no problem with people voting for whom ever they choose regardless of the party. I do object to people running in one party and openly supporting another party nominee. Unfortunately, the court over ruled the party and the DINOs are allowed to run in the primary.

[Maddy McCall]

7. I don't mind the party provision. I loathe the ID provision.

Hi, from a fellow Mississippian.

:hi:

On edit: It does bother me that voters will have to re-register, though.

[drm604]

9. That's spin.

They're spinning it as something that will help the Democrats. The truth is that requiring reregistration and photo IDs will suppress the vote. Suppressing the vote always works in favor of the Repubs.

[Joe Chi Minh]

20. They don't want Edwards foreshore.

[Maddy McCall]

21. I had a huge debate with conservatives at a "neutral" forum...

in which I stated that Voter ID requirements are akin to the poll tax of the Jim Crow era. What a lot of people don't realize is that the poll tax excluded voters of BOTH races, because poor families, whether black or white, had to first pay for and then keep up with a piece of paper showing that they had paid their poll tax, which they were required to present at the polls. Problem with poor tenant farmers was that they moved around a lot, and, if they were to misplace the receipt, they might not be able to go out and buy another...also, the price of the poll tax excluded dirt-poor people. Let's see--a dollar to vote, or a dollar to feed the 10 kids. Most chose to feed the kids. Plus the factor that you didn't get "time off" to go pay your poll tax...you worked in the field from sun up to sun down... The conservatives at that forum just could not comprehend how the historic poll tax connects to the present day voter ID.

The voter ID won't be free. There'll be some kind of fee associated with it. I think I read that in Georgia, it was $20. (Georgia's voter ID law was struck down.) Think of people on fixed incomes--the elderly and disabled.

Anyone who believes in states rights should be wailing about the voter ID provision of this law. A FEDERAL JUDGE is forcing this on Mississippians.

There are so many reasons to oppose Voter ID.

[LiberalFighter]

13. There should be a procedure that removes a person from party membership

And if they are not a member of that political party then they can't run under that party's label.

We do have something here in Indiana that prohibits a person to run under the party's label if they haven't voted in a previous primary election of the same party. I don't know about removal procedures.

[EST]

10. I wonder what other methods could be tried in the attempt to

prevent disrupters from jacking up the other party's primary.
Here in Illinois, that has always been a problem. When you vote in a primary, all the poll workers do is check to assure that you are a registered voter and then they ask whether you want a democratic or republican ballot.

Would a possible solution be that all primary voters would be allowed both ballots and allowed to vote in both primaries?
That would obviate the most glaring need to require a party ID and would acknowledge the very real nature of "contact sport" politics, while opening it up to, at least, level the field.
This would, no doubt, create a whole host of other problems, but some solution to the barely legal crap is sorely needed.

[gulfcoastliberal]

11. They need to sue using the Klan Act.

I don't understand why that avenue hasn't been used to fight our rights being sinking faster than a pacific island.

[robinlynne]

24. Tell us about the Klan act.

well i can google it...

[gulfcoastliberal]

27. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871

[salin]

14. Seems to me that the "re-registration" part of it is sorta tricky

if it isn't well enough publicized, even if one did get an ID - someone who is legit and has voted for years could be turned away at the polls. Makes me go... *sniff, sniff*

[Bleys]

15. What about independents?

In my state, I am registered as an independent, and vote however I want to. I associate with whatever party I am voting with right before voting, then disassociate right afterwards.

This is America... I think everyone should have the right to vote in whatever primary they want, as long as they only vote in one.

[MS Liberal]

16. Wrong

I think if you are not a member of the party, you should only be allowed to vote in the general election. After all the general election is the one that determines who gets the job. The primary is to determine who gets the party nomination. Therefore, if you do not belong to the party you should have no say as to who represent the party.

[Maddy McCall]

17. I agree with you on that.

I really don't think that we're going to have any problem in the 2008 primary, because Republicans will be choosing a candidate, unlike in 2004 when the candidate was the incumbent president.

The article says, IIRC, that if you don't register with a party, you'll be considered an independent. Wonder how that's going to work...the article needed to say more about that.

The huge problem for me, though, is that a FEDERAL JUDGE decided these two issues for Mississippians. I'm not very happy about that.

[MadHound]

22. A bit undemocratic there

Since it is the primaries that do narrow this down to a choice of two people, I would prefer to be part of that process on one side or the other. If we had a large, multiparty system, I would agree with you. However since we don't, I think that people need to be involved in the process during the primaries also.

[Maddy McCall]

23. I don't understand what you consider undemocratic.

I think that all people should be allowed to vote in primaries. But the fact is that the primaries are held by the parties.

I do think that Mississippi will allow independents to vote in either party's primaries. The article wasn't really clear about that.

So I don't see what's undemocratic in your views. That people who belong to neither the Republican or Democratic party will be allowed to vote? The article didn't make that really clear--what the provisions will be for those people. If those people who have neither Republican or Democratic affiliation are going to be prohibited from voting in either primary, then I do have a problem with that.

Here in Mississippi, we have a huge problem with Republicans voting in the Democratic Primary. So, in a primary run by Democrats, Republicans are choosing the candidates somewhat.

But my main problem with this is that people will have to re-register, which will end up causing some people not to vote.

I also HATE the Voter ID provision.

[MadHound]

25. What I consider undemocratic is limiting the choice of the final two candidates

To only the members of a certain party.

I believe that it is my right, especially in a two party system, to choose from the myriad of candidates available, not just the final two that the parties offer up.

If independents can vote in either primary, I have no problem with that. But if not, which is the impression I get from the article, that is what I find offensive.

Like I said, I would have no problem with this if we had a multiparty system of elections, but since we don't, the primaries essentially have to serve as the first round, with the general election serving as the run off.

I agree with you about the re-registration. This whole bill seems like it is designed to supress the vote.

[Bleys]

30. Disagree -- You're saying people can't change parties?! C'mon

This is America... and you're talking about denying people the choice to change parties? C'mon... I should be able to vote for whomever I want.

As long as you don't vote in both primaries in the same election cycle, I see no problem with it.

Forcing people to pick one party and stick with it year after year -- or not vote at all, is a piss poor idea. I should be able to change my party affiliation each election cycle. Politicians are allowed to run under whatever party they want each year, so why shouldn't I be able to vote for whatever party I want each year? What you're suggesting makes no sense.

[MasonJar]

26. Didn't the Supreme Court (shysters) already declare the voter ID unConstitutional?

[Paranoid Pessimist]

28. Welcome (back) to Jimcrowsippi n/t

[GeorgeGist]

29. Then in fairness...

the Parties should be required to pay for the cost of their primaries and their voter IDs.