Indiana voter ID law ruled constitutional

[sonias]

CNN 4/28/08
Indiana voter ID law ruled constitutional
Posted: 10:09 AM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Supreme Court on Monday backed Indiana’s law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns thousands of elderly, poor, and minority voters could be locked out of their right to cast ballots.

The 6-3 vote allows Indiana to require the identification when it holds its statewide primary next month.

At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud end up disenfranchising large groups of Americans who might lack proper documents to prove they are eligible to vote.

SCOTUSBlog 4/28/08
Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants
Monday, April 28th, 2008 10:01 am

The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may cast a ballot. Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge, and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters. Three Justices dissented. The decision, in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and a companion case, was the only ruling of the day. The Court also issued new orders, but granted review of no new cases. The Court took no action on a major new case testing whether U.S. and foreign business firms may be sued for an alleged role in the apartheid policies of South Africa (American Isuzu Motors, et al., v. Ntsebeza, et al. (07-919).

The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters. The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls “voter fraud,” and the Court’s ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part. The main opinion said states have a valid interest in preventing voting by those not entitled to do so, even if there is no specific proof of that kind of fraud in the state.

:grr::grr::grr:

Sonia

[sonias]

1. A little more was added to the SCOTUS blog post

While the Court’s main opinion said it was “fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role” in enacting the photo ID law, it went on to say that that law was neutral in its application and was adequately supported by the justifications the state had offered.

Justice David H. Souter, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Stephen G. Breyer were the three that dissented.

Sonia

[babylonsister]

2. The Supreme Court, ruling for the rethugs. Who could have

forseen this outcome? :grr:

Court Upholds Voter ID Law
By Paul Kiel - April 28, 2008, 10:13AM


Finally, the country will be rescued from its long nightmare struggle with voter fraud! And if certain voters find it harder to get their ballot cast, then so be it.

From the AP:

The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights. The decision validates Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

As those who have followed this issue will remember, this is not a surprise. As Jeffrey Toobin put it early this year:

As a general matter, in recent years the Court has been reluctant to find what is charged in this case: a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. (The notable exception, to belabor the issue, was for a plaintiff named George W. Bush.) In the end, though, it will not be the judiciary that rescues democracy; whatever the obstacles, the problems with the ballot box must be solved at the ballot box.

more...

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/court_upholds_voter_id_law.php

[sonias]

3. Thanks for that link babylonsister

I picked up the court's ruling from one of the posts.
SCOTUS ruling in Indiana voter ID case

Sonia

[liam_laddie]

4. Just in time...

for some candidates (perhaps Billary?) to suppress minority voters. Who'da thunk the SCOTUS would
"rule" this way? :sarcasm:

[Kurovski]

5. Disgusting and obvious.

Why not just charge a poll tax already. A poll tax is unconstitutional you say? Really?

Not according to the SC.

[Zodiak]

6. Just remember that part of the reasons we have this court

Is that a cadre of Democrats (mostly from the DLC) enabled Roberts and Alito's nomination so they wouldn't be called "mean" or "partisan". The blood is on the hands of Democratic politicians, as well.

Kerry tried to filibuster and was admonished by the DLC. Thanks, DLC....with friends like you....

[babylonsister]

7. SC ruling roadblock to democracy

SC ruling roadblock to democracy
Posted April 28, 2008 3:28 PM
The Swamp

by Matthew Hay Brown



Congressional Democrats are ripping into the Supreme Court ruling today that upheld Indiana's requirement that voters show identification before they may cast their ballots.

"The Court's decision today places obstacles to the fundamental rights of American citizens - especially the poor, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities - to participate in the electoral process," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "Requiring American citizens pay for underlying documents needed for an identification card and travel to distant motor vehicle locations for processing hinders - and diminishes - their right to vote."

A week before the Indiana primary, the court decided 6-3 to uphold a law the state said was necessary to prevent voter fraud. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called such requirements "roadblocks to democracy."

"The fact that every Republican in the Indiana General Assembly supported this law and every Democrat opposed it speaks volumes about the improper partisan motives behind the photo-ID movement," he said.

Indeed, that divide is mirrored at the federal level: House Republican Leader John Boehner praised the court decision.

more...

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/reid_sc_ruling_roadblock_to_de.html

[AtLiberty]

8. The 2008 election may have been decided today...

Does anyone realize this?

[crimsonblue]

9. Maybe it's me, but I don't see the problem here..

It makes sense to me that a state has the right to know that the people voting are eligible to vote. Now, if they are charging for election-approved IDs, then that's another matter. But if the IDs are easily and widely available, then there's no reason to not get one. I don't want to hear the "but the poor can't make it to the dmv or wherever." BS, in my opinion. Take a bus or find a friend to give you a ride. In most states these days, you have to show ID the first time you vote, so what's the big deal? We like to think that the Repugs are always the evil ones, but ballot stuffing and vote fraud is a two way street. The last eight years have sucked, but the Democratic party has some skeletons in its closet as well.

[sonias]

11. It's the easily and widely avaialble part that is the myth

Free ID is not necessarily free. In order to get a photo ID, you need to already have ID. That usually means your birth certificate or some other form of government form of identification. There are people who are older in our society who do not have their birth certificates. And I mean legal residents and citizens of the US. You don't have to go back very far in our history. Lots of people were born at home especially in Texas in the 30s and 40s and even the 50s. Remember we had segregated hospitals that did not allow African-Americans or even Mexican Americans to be served at white only hospitals. Many people were born at home with midwives. My grandfather was born on his parents ranch. The only documentation he had of being born in this country was a baptism certificate from the Catholic Church. That is not an acceptable legal document proving who you are in a Texas court. He has since passed away, but there are many others like this who would be disenfranchised by this law.

Even if your birth was recorded and you could get a copy of your birth certificate, in most states the cost of obtaining a new one is not free. And there is the cost associated with getting a copy. Travel time to the department etc.


Sonia

[crimsonblue]

12. I cede your point there.

I do think that photo IDs are a good thing for elections because it ensures that votes cast were valid (it may not matter anyway what with the wonderfulness of computerized voting), but the states clearly need to assist individuals in obtaining IDs. i would agree that it borders on discrimination to make the process of obtaining an ID difficult and costly, but if we can figure out an easy way (I know that'sa foreign concept the past 8 yrs) to provide IDs, then I am all for this. I guess being still pretty young, I have just been used to having photo ID and all that, and I spose I tend to forget that there were times when people didn't have a/o carry around IDs. Is there a way to determine citizenship from SSN's? If so, that could provide an easy way for people to obtain IDs. Or employers could provide witness for employees who don't have IDs-- maybe an affidavit from the employer stating that the employee is who he says he is, and then use the affidavit to get the photo ID. Just tossin out a couple of ideas.

[sonias]

13. I'll give you another example of why photo ID is a myth

You can obtain a a driver's license in Texas and most US states if you have a green card. But you're not a citizen for purposes of voting if you're in this country on a green card. How would a photo ID prevent someone with a photo ID from fraudulently voting? In one of our recent committee hearings in our Texas Legislature where we discussed how to tighten up "potential mail in ballot fraud", our DPS (aka DMV) personnel talked about how it took about 36 hours of training for people in their department to be able to spot a fraudulent photo ID. The DPS agent said kids in college are really good at making fake IDs with readily available off the self components and software. We barely require poll workers to have 2 hours of training and we barely have enough poll workers as it is. Who is going to pay to train poll workers to recognize a legitimate valid photo ID?

There is no such thing as a US citizen database. If you want to move down that path, that's where Real ID is going. If you trust the government to manage the database systems of all the 50 states and match that with birth certificates and social security numbers etc then that's where we're headed.

If there was this huge problem of fraudulent voting at the polls then maybe we would be justified in looking at doing something about it that is going to cost millions of dollars. But the only problem that's really occurring is that republicans are trying to shave off 3-5 percentage points of the Democrat's voting numbers to stay in power. And they are using the wedge issue of "illegals voting" to rile up their base.

If the government was serious about securing the integrity of the vote, they would ban paperless DRE voting. You saw how the republicans blocked Rush Holt's emergency paper ballot bill for this month didn't you? Wouldn't you rather we spend our resources on a real issue impacting election integrity rather than this false one?


Sonia

[crimsonblue]

16. I rescind my previous comments on this thread.

I'm still something of an idealist and hopefulist (I need a couple more years of getting screwed by the gov before it completely disappears) and I guess I assumed it wouldn't be that hard to put in a system that works. But I suppose when there are those out there intent on making the system flawed and full of holes, then it is kind of impossible. Maybe we need a national election database, but the potential for abuse is so widespread that it won't ever work. Sigh...

[sonias]

10. Press relase by PFAW

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: DrewCourtney or Josh Glasstetter

April 28, 2008
202-467-4999 / [e-mail]

People For: Supreme Court Won't Stand Up For Voters

The Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to Indiana's voter
identification law, the most restrictive in the country, despite the
fact that the law could block access to the ballot box for thousands of
citizens.

"The Supreme Court has abdicated its role as the defender of our
democracy. The Justices should clear the path to the ballot box for
voters, not help block the way," said Kathryn Kolbert, President of
People For the American Way Foundation. "Voter ID laws are intended to
suppress voter turnout. If voter ID advocates were truly interested in
fixing our election system, they'd be working to make elections
verifiable and end deceptive practices that keep people from the polls.

"Democracy only works when all eligible voters can actually cast a
ballot. The Justices are letting politicians erect barricades against
some groups of voters - and that's absolutely unacceptable. It's
particularly galling that this ruling comes just before a primary that
was predicted to include record numbers of new voters. I'm afraid this
is exactly the kind of ruling we've grown to expect from this Court. It
highlights once again how important future nominees to the High Court
will be to Americans rights and legal protections."

"The threat of voter fraud is a ruse. Study after study shows that
there is no widespread in person fraud by voters in this country, but
there are millions of eligible voters who don't have the ID these laws
require -- senior citizens who don't drive, students, the disabled,
low-income people, all of whom have the right to vote. These laws throw
up barriers that keep people away from the polls.

People For the American Way Foundation joined an amicus brief in this
case regarding the myth of voter fraud. The brief can be found here
VoterIDBrief_PFAW.

Sonia

[tbyg52]

14. Unbelievable. No, wait, I do believe it.

Isn't there some kind of precedent that says you don't pass laws to fix problems that hardly exist? Not that the SCOTUS cares about precedent....

[sonias]

15. ruling not a surprise - it was expected

However I expected a 5-4 decision. To have Justice John Paul Stevens move over to the voter suppression side is very disappointing. :grr:


Sonia

[sonias]

17. Project Vote's Statement on ruling

Project Vote Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board

On Monday, April 28, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law (Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board) requiring voters to show a government-issued photo identification before they may cast a ballot. Crawford plaintiffs argued that Indiana’s strict photo ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. Donna Massey, Project Vote Board Member and a supporter of voting rights, issued this statement:

"The Supreme Court ruling is disappointing for Americans who want the next president to be chosen in a free and fair election in which all eligible voters have an equal opportunity to participate. The voters most harmed by the ruling are first-time voters who are registering this year in record numbers. If legislators in the 24 states where strict photo voter ID rules have been introduced take the Court’s decision as a green light, voters across the country will find it more difficult to cast their ballots this Election Day. Our democracy works best when every American participates.

The real purpose of strict photo voter ID rules is to make it more difficult for some Americans to vote. It’s the voters who are less likely to vote who are also less likely to have government issued ID, such as young people, the poor, elderly, and Americans of color. A University of Washington study, for example, found that in Indiana 22 percent of African-American voters lack proper identification compared to 16 percent of white voters. Twenty-one percent of voters earning less than $40,000 a year lack the necessary ID compared to just 13 percent of those earning more than $40,000. All Americans have a right to vote, even if they don’t have a photo ID.

The only reason politicians support these laws is to give their party an advantage over the other. The Supreme Court took note of the partisan nature of the photo ID rules. The Court’s opinion in the case said it was "fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in enacting the photo ID law. This ruling sends an unfortunate green light to legislators in the 24 states that are still considering strict photo voter ID laws.

The right to vote has been under assault for the past eight years by partisans who put winning elections above the right to vote. Requiring voters to show photo ID is just one of many hurdles partisans put in front of voters on their way to the ballot box. Too many Americans of color are met at their polling places with long lines, partisan challengers, faulty equipment and needlessly strict photo ID requirements.

Strict photo voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence of widespread fraudulent voting in this country. Indiana even acknowledged that there hasn’t been a single case of voter impersonation in the state’s history. Americans take voting seriously and do not misrepresent themselves at the polls, so politicians shouldn’t misrepresent the facts to justify unnecessarily strict photo ID laws.

As the country’s premiere nonpartisan voter registration organization, Project Vote wants to make sure that the Americans we help register to vote can vote and have their votes counted on Election Day. Nothing should come between Americans and their right to vote.
http://www.projectvote.org/

:applause::applause:

Sonia

[AtLiberty]

18. Trying to regroup here...

I wonder if this ruling will finally wake up this country, especially when thousands of people are turned away on election day?

Trying to find something positive from this depressing, but predictable ruling.

[sonias]

19. We don't have a choice - we must regroup

Our efforts now have to shift to taking on the education portion of these laws. That's the other part of this that people forget. Most states do a horrible job of letting their voters know what is necessary in order to vote. Hundreds of thousands of voters show up to vote on election day, only to find out they're not on the rolls, they don't have proper ID or they're at the wrong precinct. So they're allowed to cast a provisional ballot, which for the most part is never counted. This ruling will add thousands more this election year.

Texas for example has notoriously low rates of counting provisionally ballots - about 25%. You have a 1 in 4 chance of having your provisional ballot counted. That's totally unacceptable. The majority of them don't count because people simply showed up at the wrong precinct. There's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to cast a regular ballot for at least the federal and statewide races. Texas republicans keep bottlenecking the bill that would allow this kind of voter's vote to be counted.

Now third party registration groups and voting rights groups will have to pick up the slack and fight to make sure people know what their rights are when registering. And inform them of what is required to vote in person. This should be the state's job, but most won't make a big effort because it costs them money. States and local election officials only see elections as a cost, and not the real underpinning of our democracy.

Voter rights groups will also have to make a bigger push and file lawsuits to make sure provisional ballots count. There will be a great hurdle getting people to come back to the county registrar's office to make their ballot count. Who wants to make a second trip somewhere, stand in line and then be made to swear an affidavit saying you're poor, so that your ballot will count. And how many times will you have to do this. Every time they vote, they'll have to go though the same two-step hurdle.

AAS 4/28/08
Advocates: Voter ID ruling may disenfranchise US voters
(snip)
In Marion County, 34 Indiana voters without the proper identification were forced to file provisional ballots in an offseason local election. According to Indiana's photo law, voters have 10 days to return to the county courthouse with the proper identification. They can also file an affidavit claiming poverty.

"Who's going to do that?" asked Bob Brandon, president of Fair Elections Legal Network, a nonpartisan network of election lawyers. "Who's going to show up and sign an affidavit saying 'I'm poor'?"

Sonia

[BradBlog]

20. FWIW, here's The BRAD BLOG's take on today's SCOTUS outrage...

Including a few ideas about how such laws could go even farther, to ensure only the "right" voters get to vote in American elections...

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5932

[sonias]

21. Activists: Ruling hurts youth voters

Politico blog 4/28/08
Activists: Ruling hurts youth voters
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision to uphold Indiana’s voter identification requirement Monday morning will likely depress youth turnout — especially among college students — in the upcoming Indiana primary, according to voting rights experts.

“Whereas most people focus on the effects voter ID laws have on minority and indigent voters, they often hit hardest on young people and particularly college students,” said Matthew Segal, founder of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment, which signed the amicus brief opposing the Indiana law.

In Indiana, voters must present a government-issued photo identification card with the one’s current address at the voting booth.

Young people, because they move residences frequently, are less likely to have such an ID. For instance, Rock the Vote’s February poll of 18-29 year olds found that 19 percent of respondents did not have a photo ID with their current address on it.

Another group of people that gets overlooked - the young mobile voter, whether they're students or just moved to a different state. These are likely to be very motivated voters this year too.

Sonia