Supreme Court to rule on voter ID laws: "ruling could affect outcome in races in several states"

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Supreme Court to rule on voter ID laws
By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 25, 2007

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court set the stage today for an election-year clash over whether states can require voters to have a government-issued photo identification before they cast a ballot. The court's ruling could affect the outcome in close races in several states.

The photo identification laws have been championed by Republicans as a means of preventing voter fraud. They say the required identification will screen out ineligible voters, including felons, illegal immigrants and non-residents. A state-issued driver's license meets the requirement.

Democrats have opposed the requirement and argue that thousands of poor, elderly or disabled persons do not have a photo identification because they do not drive. They fear the rules are likely to dissuade an untold number of voters from casting ballots, and thereby might tip a close election. In addition, they say fraudulent voting is more likely among those who file absentee ballots by mail, and the voter identification rule usually does not extend to such voters.

Photo identification laws have been adopted in several states, including Indiana, Georgia and Arizona, and they have been generally upheld.

The issue has not only divided state legislators along partisan lines, but the same split has been apparent in the judicial rulings. The U.S. appeals court in Chicago upheld Indiana's law on 2-1 vote. Two Republican appointees made up the majority, while a Democratic appointee dissented....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus26sep26,0,4520090.story?coll=la-home-center

[jdlh8894]

1. To just register to vote,

you have to prove citizenship and residency. So what is the point in this?

[DeepModem Mom]

2. The GOP is really good at making it really difficult for people they don't want to vote...

to actually vote. In the hands of GOP operatives in state governments, they can supress a lot of Democratic votes.

[pudding man]

3. ... more hope for the Judicial ...

At least they agreed to hear the appeal, hopefully with a sensible decision
prior to the '08 election.

So far, I hold out more hope for the Judicial than for the "Executive" or
"Legislative" branches.

[stranger81]

4. somehow the fact they've agreed to hear the case terrifies me . . . .

the SCOTUS doesn't usually get out of bed these days unless it's to shore up the authoritarian * administration or to scuttle the rights of some minority group . . . . I'm not expecting a better outcome here.