| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Big Government- Hot Air
- Michelle Malkin
- Wheeling & dealing: Snowe pow-wows with Obama; Landrieu, Schumer, Daschle behind the scenes
- Saturday in the Senate: Cash for Cloture; Reid gets 60; Update: 8:15pm Eastern cloture vote – 60-39; Voinovich absent; Dems invoke Teddy Kennedy; Reid: “Ted would be happy.”
- Another day, another Berkeley tantrum
- Jake Tapper
- Lynn Sweet
Bad news for Democrats: USSC rejects challenge to Indiana voter ID laws
Via AP:
WASHINGTON – 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 prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
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. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
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, just as they did in 2000.
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.
The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.
Lyle Denniston explains the ruling:
The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a government-issued 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 means that the law will be enforced without a legal cloud over it in the presidential primary election in Indiana on May 6. About half of the states have such laws.
[...]
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.
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.
Putting together the three votes of Justices who found the paate rticulart challenge to Indiana’s law wanting on the evidence, with the votes of the three dissenters, means, however, that a majority of the Court has not barred all future challenges to voter ID laws, provided future cases seek to test such laws as they were actually applied in a specific election. Still, the plurality opinion that announced the Court’s judgment – written by Justice John Paul Stevens — probably means that any such “as-applied” challenges would not be easy to make.
The opinions can be read here. As expected, the usual corners are crying foul, believing “harassment” and “disenfranchisement” are just around the corner for poor and elderly Dem voters. How dare voters have to show proof of identity, even when they’re no longer with us! 
Flashback:
- 9/26/07: It’s “stolen election” preparation time in the mainstream media
- 7/30/07: John Fund on voter fraud
- 7/29/07: Liberal network PBS advances idea that the White House led efforts to ’steal’ the 2004 elections
- 7/27/07: Liberal voter registraton group [ACORN] busted – AGAIN
- 3/29/07: Voter fraud
- 9/24/04: Officials: Man Dead For 20 Years Registers To Vote
- 8/4/04: Scandal of double voters
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
35 Responses to “Bad news for Democrats: USSC rejects challenge to Indiana voter ID laws”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Thanks for linking to the opinions. While I would have prefered Scalia’s opinion be the Opinion of the Court, it is rather useful to have Stevens’ opinion be that. It rather devastatingly destroys the liberal straw men erected in the face of a voter ID requirement.
The problem is, most voter fraud exists in absentee ballots, and not in person. That is an illegal use of the system, but much harder to catch, and this law will not deal with this problem at all. This pretty much accounts for 90-99% of all “dead voters”. They’re are very few people convicted of “impersonation” fraud. Statistically speaking, I would guess “impersonation fraud” accounts for less than 0.001% of votes in any district.
Although, voting in multiple counties IS common. And this fraud doesn’t always favor democrats…
It has always been thought that black voters were the most loyal demographic for the Democrats, at about 90%. However, black voters are actually the second most loyal demographic for the Democrats, and this decision strikes hard at their most loyal demographic, deceased voters, who give almost 100% of their votes to the Democratic Party.
I’d bet that many of the people screaming have ID badges with a photo of themselves on it. Last I checked that qualified. Plus Indiana offered free photo IDs to people too poor to afford one.
Good for the supreme court.
See, I’ve always heard that deceased voters favor republicans. I guess there’s no way to know until we actually write a law to look at the absentee ballot problem?
Maybe next time?
(BTW: I love the modification system. It’s the coolest thing since digital sliced bread)
Yeah, that’s why the practice is so associated with Chicago and St. Louis, they are hotbeds of Republican politics.
Just take a look at Washington State if you want to see every ugly vote fraud practice on full display, from absentee ballots, to nefarious counting and discovery of votes that mysteriously show up in Dem precincts just enough over to sway the election, to virulent voter registration fraud.
Oh, what am I thinking, that resulted in a Democrat win, so it’s OK.
There is the problem with the absentee vote for two reasons; college kids who vote twice, and the elderly in nursing homes who have people “help” them fill out the forms, and cast the vote for them.
I have to admit Alchemist, your link really doesn’t support voter fraud. Infact it is rather laughable to call this fraud. It is a 2006 story and the “crime” took place in February. What is the statute of limitations on voting in the wrong precinct?? 6 months?? What did the State’s Attourney do to Ann?? If you think this is support for your point, you are sadly mistaken. Did Ann vote more than 1 time in this town council election?? In Chicago Ann Coulter would be an amatuer at this. – Lorica
alchemist,
That story looks like GOTCHA politics at it’s worst.
After being involved with a woman for more than half a year now who has battled a stalker with restraining orders and over 50 phone calls to the police, I have ZERO sympathy for the gorilla tactics of Anderson in that story.
Coulter has a right to privacy and doesn’t need her name and address smeared across the press or anywhere else but SHOULD have the right to vote.
TO ACT like she’s PROBABLY voting more than once is laughable.
You alchemist should be ASHAMED of yourself and so should Anderson.
ALL stories that I’ve seen with voter fraud have all dealth with St. Louis, Chicago and other places where polls are kept open longer, …..
…. and 99% – 101% of registered voters have voted.
Now tell me alchemist… How does 101% of registered voters in these cities vote? And 90% Democrat. It’s a machine in the worst way and you know it.
And it isn’t absentee. In the non inner city precincts, voting is about 50% – 60% of registered voters and you want to smear those people????
Crazy man !!
And without these so called BLUE areas…. Democrats would NEVER win national elections.
You might not want to wish for voting fraud to be investigated alchemist. Cause liberalism is a failed idea with mentally diseased people believing in it!!
/rant off
I’m just saying she, illegally, registered to vote. If she cooperated with authorities, probably nothing would have happened. But she didn’t, and so the case may be investigated. We can also go to the Florida 2000 election, where 68% of double registrants were democrats, 32% republicans. Obviously, this looks unevenly democratic, but I imagine that if you tracked down both sides (nationally) it would come up fairly even in both parties. (Note: You can track this down without a voter ID)
Actually, I fully admit Washington state was a mess. (My parents actually live up there). Then again, so was Ohio in 2004, or Florida in 2000. I would argue (as in Washington) that much of this fraud was instigated by the polling places themselves, and not by “fraudulent identity”. This ID law will not protect against this problem. It also won’t solve the electronic voting issue, which scares me quite a bit.
To clarify; I’m really not anti-ID, I just don’t think it’s going to stop voter fraud, especially not the “dead absentee voter” problem. I’m also worried that it will promote some voting areas to disenfranchise voters by putting them on a “wild goose ID chase”, either by claiming that the ID is incorrect, or inadequate, etc. If that second problem can be better monitored, I would look upon it more favorably.
Seeing if this’ll load right.
Voter ID
LOL! Good one, Sev
Well I feel justified. Didn’t get a single one of my questions answered by Alchemist, and not a single new item about this rather old story. I did get a bunch of hyperbole and speculation not much in the way of support, but hey 220…221 whatever it takes. – Lorica
And you got the usual Florida 2000 trope from him Lorica. No matter how often even liberal rags like NYT and LAT fail to find any disenfranchisement and that the recounts wouldn’t have changed the results, and no matter how often it’s proven that Gore’s henchmen tried to selectively recount against the law, as ruled by the SCOTUS, and deliberately went to court to disenfranchise military voters, we get the usual repetition means it’s true BS from the libs on this.
Good way to undercut your credibility there alchemist, what little you had to start with.
alchemist plays judge and jury, “I’m just saying she, illegally, registered to vote.”
Do you know anything alchemist?
When did you stop beating your wife?
alchemist wrote putting the chicken before the egg, “and so the case may be investigated.”
Investigations are not convictions. When did you stop beating your wife?
And as usual, Baklava, he had nothing to say about the fact that one of the “victims” trotted out by the Dems in this voter ID case turned out to be registered to vote in two places, illegally.
Lorica, I’m not overly concerned about the Ann coulter case, which is why I didn’t respond. I do know that she was registered in NY and in Florida. That is illegal. Chances are she’ll never be prosecuted, (as is true in 90% of the cases). I don’t know anything about stalkers, although that appears to be an issue. Really, I just snipped a quick page from the first headline that came up.
Still, there probably are those that vote in multiple places. You can get around that even if ID’s are required. it’s pretty easy to “lose” an ID before registering for an ID in another state. I still have a few ID’s from high school that I lost behind a couch, in an old gymbag etc.
Baklava: Can you source your 101% polling number? That requires less work on my part.
Sev: I don’t know anything about proposed victims doublevoting. Link?
Look, my main concern is that possible disenfranchisement could be higher than the alleged voter impersonation. Since we have no accurate numbers on either, I see both sides having legitimate concerns.
At this point, this is only going to be straightened out during a presidential election, which politics are at their most hyperbolic. Therefore, the WORST time to deal with anything. Some people are going to be claiming fake ID’s, others are going to claim disenfranchisement, and both are likely to happen simultaneously. People are going to get pissed, one way or another, and that’s not a good way to help transition into the next presidency.
I believe rule changes such as this should always take a dry-run at a less important election, to get rid of the tics.
BTW: I was using Florida (& Ohio, & Washington) not as voter disenfranchisement, but as a display of a poorly run election where there was large discrepancies between voting records and ballots, and some polling stations had noted irregularities that would not necessarily have been solved by voter ID alone.
Which I am absolutely certain that the howling moonbats that run Dem precincts are going to screw with it as much as they can, JUST so they can claim “disenfranchisement”.
All of which were Dem run precincts, only proving my above point.
You ever notice that whenever this disenfranchisement is screamed it is usually on the east coast. Couldn’t be that they want to sacrifice their own, in the hopes that is will cement voters in more populated states out west?? Corruption thy name is Democrat. I don’t know how you can vote for these individuals Alchemist. Their constant illegalities would make me wretch everytime I did. – Lorica
Ohhhh and if you were not concerned with it, then you shouldn’t have used it. It made you look vapid at best, and foolish at worse. – Lorica
alchemist wrote, “I do know that she was registered in NY and in Florida. That is illegal.”
uh oh. When I moved from VA to CA and registered in CA I must’ve committed a felony. Put me in jail mr. wife beater alchemist… I need to be in jail for 5 years according to you…….
alchemist wrote, “Still, there probably are those that vote in multiple places. You can get around that even if ID’s are required.”
That’s why on voting day you see all jets are FULLY booked. Where is the data on that?
alchemist wrote, “Baklava: Can you source your 101% polling number? That requires less work on my part.”
It’s out there. Precinct reporting is posted by secretary’s of state. I’m extrememly busy and would ask you to take ownership of being self-informed. THe precincts that have 100% voting in St. Louis or other cities is NOT spiked information. It’s out there.
Back to work for me.
Once again alchemist, you have little reading comprehension skill, I said registered to vote in two places, not voted twice, although that’s certainly possible, and numerous people have been found to do just that.
And once again, are you two freaking incompetent and lazy to use a search engine to look things up for yourself without someone holding your hand?. Typical leftist, I NEVER SAW THAT (head in sand) and LINK? What are we, the online link equivalent of the welfare office? Supposed to hand feed you things you should know about anyway (and probably do but just want to pretend they don’t exist). Are you really that out of touch?
Well, just cause I’m such a nice guy:
Link
Now read something other than leftist echo chambers and pay attention to current events.
There is one group of people that attack any move toward election fraud controls and that is the left. Without controls, it is left to resignation or revolution to resolve the matter. Let’s tighten up the voting process now.
Absolutely!!! She has chosen her state of residence when she chose a Florida Drivers license. It is not the state of Indiana’s responsibility to ensure she can vote conveinently, it is her’s. – Lorica
Actually, that’s one place where I agree with the purpose of the voter ID law. She registered to vote in multiple states, she couldn’t prove her address, therefore she didn’t vote.
So, in concept, I think voter ID is a good idea. However, in practical use, there are some issues that need to be resolved that may prevent some from voting.
1) Allowing homeless voting. Here’s a brief breakdown of state-by-state homeless voting laws. Most homeless are American citizens (many are also veterans). However, because they have no address, many have trouble getting ID’s, or access to voting. This issue needs to be addressed. There are a number of advocacy groups working on this issue, ID’s may complicate this matter if not addressed.
2) The elderly. Specifically, nursing home age elderly. Most of them vote by absentee anyway, however those that choose to vote may have ID’s considerably older than those expected by polling stations, which may lead to disqualifying some residents accidentally. This would need to be addressed.
3) Poorer areas of cities tend to have lower number of DMV’s. (For example: Atlanta, GA has 1 DMV for 416,000 people) I think it makes sense to host ID drives prior to election date to target areas that may have trouble reaching the DMV. This would also prevent backup at DMV locations.
These things would considerably dull my feelings on the issue. I’m still worried that many legal ID’s will be questioned due to age, wear & tear, bad pictures etc.
Finally, I think alot of voter fraud could be addressed by combining state-to-state voting records in order to look for dual-registrations, out-of-state felonies, and obituaries. Non-existent addresses could also be detected with computer databases (as per Chicago, 1982).