The Supreme Court upholds Indiana’s photographic identification to vote requirement
And along with me being a Republican again, the United States Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s strict photographic identification requirement to be able to vote. In a 6-3 decision, with no majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens — of all people! — said the law:
is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
Justice Stevens joined Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in the majority. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Steven Breyer and David Souter preferred to make it easier for fraudulent voting by non-citizens, the unregistered and big-city Democratic Party machinery.
________________
Update: Sharon has an article up on the reaction of the nutroots. Apparently the notion that only real registered voters and [gasp!] real American citizens should be able to vote in elections for American offices constitutes fascism.
Others writing on the subject:
- Brian at Liberty Pundit
- Sister Toldjah
- Jim Lynch of bRight & Early
- DRJ of Patterico’s Pontifications
- Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard noted just where Senator Barack Obama came down on this issue — on the wrong side!
Gretchen:
You can imagine the disappointment over this ruling of Tim Robbins, Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon.
The three ultra-liberal actors were just about to film a sequel to their 1995 movie, Dead Man Walking.
The new movie was to be called Dead Man Voting–but now the Supreme Court ruling has ruined the premise of the new movie! Sadly for the leftist actors, dead men don’t carry photo IDs.
28 April 2008, 6:14 pmRovin:
Of course the Washington Post has weighed in with their liberal slant:
Three liberal justices — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer — dissented.
The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was the most sharply partisan case the court has considered since its ruling in Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election.
So, (according to Wapo) dead men voting is a partisan issue.
28 April 2008, 6:25 pmDana Pico:
Well, it is: As it turns out, black voters, at about 90%, are only the second most loyal demographic for Democrats, as deceased voters approach 100% loyalty.
28 April 2008, 6:50 pmArt Downs:
As a person who put in a lot of hours investigating vote fraud, I must note that the concept of ‘canvassing the tombstones’ has never been that popular. A simple comparison of death records and the names on voter authorization cards (VACs) would reveal the truth
Wholesale vote fraud is possible only in places where one party controls the precincts and persons with ‘registrations of convenience’ represent the ‘minority party’ at the polling places. The trick is to have a voters list padded with names of persons who have left the community. Techniques for purguing such names are bypassed and ‘party loyalists’ can then vote multiple times per day, using a different name each time. Who will tell?
The type of voting machine used can make a difference and the touch screen devices could be rigged by local crooks (but not by the manufacturer, as some Dems rashly claimed).
Only one party has the assets to practice wholesale vote theft.
29 April 2008, 8:25 amdonviti:
You can find this crap on any wing nut website and it proves that it is solely a GOP thing and always has been. You talk about “renegade” judges that interpret the law well what do you know about this ruling? Your post shows it….nothing.
The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history
Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud
hmmm voter fraud has just been prevented eh? how? The problem with you guys is written right in your title. Common Sense…you think it applies to everything when something deeper than common sense typically applies.
29 April 2008, 11:56 amdonviti:
Gretchen,
can you define “ultra liberal”
29 April 2008, 12:12 pmdonviti:
Rovin,
Please show me where there were dead men voting? What this is, is a classical straw man issue. something has been created out of a non issue.
why not have issue with paperless voting or something where there really is something to fear. You see that would be too hard though b/c that would take more than common sense to prove that a voter should get a piece of paper confirming they voted for X.
it’s easier to prey on the poor they can’t fight back.
29 April 2008, 12:16 pmDana Pico:
Donviti, just what is your objection to the law and this ruling? You’ve criticized a great deal, but somehow never told us why the law is a bad one or the ruling is incorrect.
29 April 2008, 1:50 pmdonviti:
lets say we have a bunch of speeding on i95 and we enact a law that says we will fine people speeding through school zones double to reduce the speeding on i95…only the law doesn’t do jack shit to prevent the speeding of people through school zones on i95 b/c there are none.
They just created a law for you nitwits to cheer about and it accomplished nothing but hurting people that don’t have ID’s. Don’t you people get civil rights at all?
didn’t you read my bullet?
NO FRAUD OCCURRED IN INDIANA FOR THE LAW THE SUPREME COURT ENFORCED. That is the epitomy of a straw man and you republican lap dogs just slurp it.
just like your idiotic self baahh, baaaahing for Rush Limbaugh. You hear something and apply your “common sense” logic and think well 2+2= 4 so it’s a no brainer.
it is sad, so sad really. The supreme court just ruled on a monumental case on something that never existed NOT ONCE in Indiana.
wrap your common sense logic on that one.
29 April 2008, 4:29 pmArt Downs:
When the last few dozen VACs in a precinct are signed in alphabetical order and in similar handwriting, some suspicions are raised.
Now there are some sensitive souls who do not dare venture out of suburbia who may be unaware of urban politics. This includes hacks loyal to a boss changing their affiliation so that they can become election judges and even minor party officials.
I do remember numerous moonbats claiming that Republicans rigged the 2004 election via the Diebold touch screen machines. These machines can be rigged, but only by local people with strong partisan loyalties and access to folks with the right skills and source code. This rigging is impossible when there is a reasonable balance in voter registration. When the imbalance is greater than 6-1, almost anything is possible. What party enjoys such an advantage in precincts where the electorate is less than sophisticated?
Some of us have played the game but some of the noisiest are mere spectators.
29 April 2008, 5:23 pmU.S. Supreme Court - Blogrunner:
[...] The Supreme Court upholds Indiana’s photographic identification to vote requirementAnd along with me being a Republican again, the United States Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s strict photographic identification requirement to be able to vote. In a 6-3 decision, with no majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens — of all people! Kicking Asselap(’1209405607′); [...]
30 April 2008, 7:10 amaphrael:
I haven’t read the decision, so I don’t know if I agree with it.
I will see that I dislike as a policy matter a rule which requires people to pay money to obtain ID in order to vote. But if the law provides for easily obtained free identification, then it’s hard to see what the problem is.
3 May 2008, 6:52 pmDana Pico:
I wouldn’t consider a npminal fee overly burdensome, but such could be set up as a free identifier. With the so-called “motor voter” law requiring states to allow voter registration at driver’s license centers, the equipment for producing photographic identification already exists where people can register to vote.
3 May 2008, 8:00 pm