Big SCOTUS ruling:
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.
Putting aside the legal arguments, as I botch those any time I discuss them, let me put it this way- I really don’t have a problem with this decision, nor do I have a problem with being required to present photo id when voting. It just does not seem unreasonable to me, not to mention that I have managed to present photo id every time I have voted my entire adult life.
Now, having said that, I do understand several aspects of this issue which make things, well, difficult. I understand that currently this is going to put a disproportionate burden on the poor and the elderly and the handicapped, who will have a more difficult time getting the requisite identification. I think the solution to this problem is not simple, but it is straight-forward- make it easier to obtain valid photo identification. If I remember correctly, when voter-id laws were passed in Georgia (I think it was Georgia), I was appalled at how few locations there were for people to get identification. That needs to be addressed.
Again, I am not dealing with the legal arguments, nor am I dealing with the fact that must of the allegations of voter fraud have turned out to be pure bullshit drummed up by the usual suspects, but rather I am trying to deal with certain realities. To most of the population, requiring a photo id when voting does not seem to be an unreasonable requirement, and now it is the law of the land. No point bickering about it at this point, but rather address the underlying issues which will make this requirement a burden for some. That seems to be the only reasonable thing to do at this point.
nightjar
As long as the ID’s cost nothing, I’m Ok! with it. If it costs a nickel, then it’s a nickel poll tax. I firmly believe the red states that have been pushing this concept are doing it to suppress voting by the poor. Georgia has been one of the most audacious at this, along with championing some the most error prone electronic voting machines in the country.
Zifnab
If we’re lucky, laws like these will have the upshot of getting a great many poor, elderly, and handicapped people on the state record books, where they need to be in order to get basic public assistance. Getting everyone in the US some form of identification isn’t a bad thing. I just see this turning into a modern version of the poll tax. Once the state has its hands in the system, they can start wiping people off the voter rolls simply be “updating” licenses or shutting down the DPS in heavy democrat-voting areas. It’s kinda like how rich neighborhoods get more polling sites than poor neighborhoods.
On the other-other flip side, I think voter ids might actually help prevent disenfranchisement if the right amount of oversight is applied.
The real problem isn’t the license, its the lack of faith in the system. The current system has a near-neglegable rate of voter fraud. The new system will continue to have a meager rate, but with the added bonus of suppressed voter turnout. I can see how valid ID shouldn’t be a problem to present. I can also see how GOP operatives can use the requirement of valid ID to intimidate and harass voters.
Ultimately, its not the law I have a problem with. It’s the guys policing the system.
The Other Steve
I agree with John.
It seems to me that if you are making an argument that you wish to help people out of poverty, you don’t support a status quo where people in poverty live without proper id. Without proper id, there are a lot of things you cannot do, such as cash a check.
Edmund Dantes
I have no problem. So long as the legislators and politicians that push for a Voter ID law are passing laws just as fast that increase spending on creating more places to obtain IDs, making the process free, *chuckle* and *full throated chuckle* they are *rolling on the floor with the absurdity of the thought*… Who am I kidding? That’s not going to happen.
jake
My initial reaction is “What a load of crap,” and nightjar mentions one reason, but I’m holding final judgement until I see:
1. How many states decide you absolutely must have an ID to vote … in October.
2. Whether the WH uses this as an opportunity to ram Real[expensive]ID down state’s throats.
Davebo
I’m with you John.
In the end, you have to pick your battles, and this one is a loser.
Elvis Elvisberg
That’s fair enough, John.
The thing about these laws is that (1) there is no actual issue to address here (no voter fraud), and (2) they are pushed by the GOP solely and entirely to disenfranchise voters who tend to vote Democratic.
So, while the abstract case for them is fine (I agree with your logic), they are nefarious. (Doesn’t mean they’re unconstitutional, necessarily).
And is the GOP that pushed through these laws really going to bother to make it easier to get an ID? (Hint: the answer is “no”).
Sinister eyebrow
I think Nightjar has it right on this issue. I don’t mess with much (or any) voter right’s issues these days–even when I worked for the ACLU I would get the cold sweats whenever the director would ask for a legal opinion on something like this because of the amount of complexity that has grown up around these issues in the law.
However, unless the ID is free to anyone who can’t afford it then it constitutes an impermissible restriction on the right to vote no less offensive then the poll taxes and literacy tests of the Jim Crow Era. I also believe that the intent of the legislation was just that–a poll tax.
Here’s the question to ask: If the photo ID required to vote costs $10, is it still acceptable to require it before allowing someone to vote? How about if Indiana decided to raise the price of the ID to $250, would it still be acceptable or would it be a barrier to exercising the right to vote?
Incertus
And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the two states that have taken the lead on this–Indiana and Georgia–are fairly red states with a vested interest in keeping themselves red. How might you do that? Find ways to keep the system rigged in your favor. That’s what Florida has done, which is why I laugh at people who think Florida will be a swing state in a tight election.
Dungheap
Where the problem voter ID laws are designed to address are non-existent (the Court acknowledges as much) and the burdens imposed by them are very real, I think this decision is horeshit.
Of all the problems that exist in the electoral system, combating voter impersonation doesn’t even rank.
Silver Owl
The time and resources spent on bringing this issue to the Supreme Court was wasteful. The legislation itself addressed a non-existent problem or at most an extereme minute problem.
The increased cost to states and taxpayers to support legislation for no other reason than republicans are too lazy to actually work and must create bigger infrastructures unnecessarily to make it appear that they are doing something is yet another waste of time, resources and funds.
Add in the fact that they target a voting segment that can least afford the new law, I’d say the conservatives have done a splendid fucking job of creating a mess for no other purpose than they can not get elected on their merits.
Today’s republicans are too fucking expensive and wasteful.
Richard Bottoms
A minor issue, stupid to fight over. It’s roadblocks to actual voter registration, hindering changing or correcting your registration, and blocking recovery of the right to vote after conviction that are the real problems.
Just plain silly. Who doesn’t have an ID these days?
nightjar
I live in New Mexico and every election the wingnuts go apeshit making all kinds of accusations of vote fraud. And every time it gets investigated, little or no evidence is found. They also use the vote fraud red herring to challenge people at the polls for the sole purpose of slowing down voting, hoping to discourage and intimidate legal voters.
Although NM is a swing state for prez elections, it’s deep blue on the state level and Big Dog Bill has put a stop to most of the GOP shenanigans.
Blue Neponset
There is no good reason to require a photo ID. You can weed out all the non-existent voter fraud by requiring a non-photo ID like a utility bill, bank statement or government check. The problem with that easy solution is it doesn’t make it harder for Democratic leaning voters to vote.
Jill
“…make it easier to obtain valid photo identification”
I thought making it more difficult to obtain valid photo ID was needed to stop terrorists from getting valid ID.
jon
As long as a notarized copy of photo identification is turned in with every absentee ballot, these laws are just.
What’s wrong? Did I just point something out?
Absentee ballots could never be manipulated, stolen, forged, or otherwise used for fraudulent purposes. Everyone knows that. Right?
ThymeZone
I do have a serious problem with it.
First of all, the last time I read up on it, which was around the time that the arguments were made to the Court, my recollection is that there were no cases of actual voter fraud in Indiana that met any test of something that this law could prevent. In other words, the law is aimed at preventing something that has not actually happened.
So, why would Indiana think it so important to advance such a law, and bear the cost of taking it to the Supreme Court, to avert what appears to be a nonexistant threat?
Because the law discriminates against a class of people. It basically imposes a new voter test, namely that voting is only for people who are willing to participate in the full range of government intrustion into their lives. People who fear and mistrust government, for example.
chopper
i agree about the cost issue. if it costs money to get a photo ID from indiana i don’t see how this isn’t a violation of the 24th amendment.
Zifnab
Apparently 13% of registered voters in Indiana.
chopper
..via the 14th.
Glocksman
Well, as Our Lady of Perpetual Outrage pointed out in her piece on the subject, one of the ‘disenfranchised voters’ in the suit was registered to vote in both Indiana and Florida.
Yes, it’s so horrible that Indiana officials wouldn’t accept her out-of-state driver’s license as valid ID.
Fargus
Oh! That’s why they’re poor, right? Because they don’t have ID to cash their checks! The Republicans truly are the champions of the poor! They just need ID to be able to cash that big pile of checks that’s sitting on the table.
Gimme a break.
It doesn’t seem like a burden to people who already have IDs because we have IDs for other reasons. If everybody had to go get a special voter ID, that was different from any other photo ID we already had, it might be a different story. Those middle-class and upper-class voters who don’t have a problem with the law as it is might have a problem with it if it actually affected them directly.
The fact remains that while you can argue about whether obtaining the ID is a big or a small impediment to voting, it is unquestionably an impediment to voting. That’s what matters here.
Zifnab
By the court’s logic, if – for instance – there were no cases of rape in Indiana, the state would still be allowed to have a law on the books that deterred rape. Voter Fraud is illegal. Ergo, the state has the right to deter it even if no one is actually committing the crime.
Stupid? You bet. Wasteful? Incredibly. Unconstitutional? Well… not really, no. If the state doesn’t want to waste its cash enforcing a law that never gets broken, elect representatives that won’t pass said legislation. But drivers licenses are free in Indiana. There’s no poll tax here. The state has the right to put this burden on the citizenry.
The law is a shitty law, no doubt. There are lots of shitty laws on the books. But it isn’t Unconstitutional.
Svensker
Well, I know a bunch of folks, mostly weirdo libertarian or “off the grid” types, or commie-pinko guys, both of whom tend not to have much money. They all live in NYC, so probably won’t have to worry about this issue in the foreseeable future. But I can see how it would be a major problem for quite a few folks.
Glocksman
I forgot to add that my impression of this woman is that she’s just a simple tax cheat in trying to claim residence in both states (claiming the homestead tax exemption in both states and registering her car in Florida because its cheaper to plate a newer car there than it is here), and my sympathy for her and other ‘snowbirds’ who pull the same shit is on the same level as my sympathy for GWB’s poll ratings.
IOW, none at all.
4tehlulz
You know, if we still allowed just property owners to vote, this wouldn’t be a problem.
Sometimes, the old ways are the best.
Dennis - SGMM
If I was to bet, I’d bet that the Republicans were aiming the voter ID laws at illegal immigrants rather than the negligible number of Americans who have no ID. That illegal immigrants weren’t even mentioned in the arguments makes it all the more likely to me that they’re the actual target. To have made immigration status the argument for voter ID would have tarred the Republicans as anti-immigrant would have forever dashed their vain hopes of capturing the Latino vote. The vanishingly small number of Americans who have no ID are of no consequence to either party.
Brachiator
I agree with TZ here. The case did not represent any real issue, other than a spurious claim by conservatives that “illegals” were magically appearing and voting in droves in non-existent districts. Rightwingnuttia is chortling over the decision because they believe that it will provide impediments to Democratic Party members voting in elections.
So the decision is a solution in search of a problem. And it creates unnecessary impediments to voting.
And jon is right on the money that the decision does nothing to prove that absentee ballots are legitimate. But of course, poor people are supposedly less likely to cast absentee ballots.
I wonder what issues are raised in the dissents to this opinion?
It’s funny. I had not thought about it before, but this decision has now raised the issue. I do not believe that you must have “a proper ID” in order to be a citizen of the United States or to exercise your rights. This reminds me too much of South Africa’s pass laws.
ThymeZone
I don’t find that a compelling argument. The right to have sex is not quite up there with the right to vote, and I am not sure that trying to equate defense against rape with defense against nonexistant voter fraud is valid.
I don’t think the basis of constitutionality should be that any law against anything is okay, as long as the thing it’s against is, you know, undesirable. There has to be some rationale that says that proscription is worth the price of the proscription. If this proscription prevents no actual crime, but in fact keeps voters from voting, then in my view, it’s wrong. It’s no different from then requiring competancy tests for voting. After all, you don’t want people who can’t read and write voting, do you?
Sorry, no sale. The law is wrong and should be struck down.
Dork
If you think even one of these photo places will be within 100 miles of an urban center, I really want whatever drugs yer smoking.
Also, their hours will be open from 12-12:05, Monday thru Wednesday in September only. At the end of the street, past the burning cross, over large rocks and boulders and without a sidewalk, ramp, or pavement, certainly not within 4 miles of a bus stop.
This is (now) legal voter disenchantment. Why not pass a voting law to prevent aliens from other planets from voting…something that makes you show your Human DNA ID Validation (DNA Validation center hours…see above) and an iris scan?
Zifnab
Right, so look to the silver lining here. We have an opportunity to expand government service and ensure that more people in rural and impoverished states – like Indiana and Georgia – can get identification. I’m sure you’re not arguing against the IDs because you believe IDs are inherently bad. So Democrats need to step up in those states and push for more DMVs, longer hours, better accessibility for the elderly and disabled, and improved documentation so that out-of-staters and people without birth certificates have an avenue to get registered.
If you wanted to go really, really nuts, you could use this opportunity to get more people registered to vote, which – unless I miss my mark – is the whole point of this game to begin with.
One of the reasons the voter ID law is so nefarious is that while the GOP raises the bar for voters, it cuts back on public services. They recently shut down the DMV in Gary, Indiana, which means you’ve got to drive three counties away to get a driver’s license. That’s not just bad for voters. That’s bad for everyone with a car. Democrats need to aggressively attack the root problem here. Simply busing in warm bodies to vote, then forgetting about them for two years, is not an acceptable solution.
Ryan S.
Just for your info this is what you have to do in my state to get a photo ID.
And yeah your have to pay the fee when renewing too. They also don’t stipulate that the average office wait time is 4-6 hrs also. This is the biggest load of CRAP ever… what was that about judicial activism?? I guess its different when the shoe is on the other foot.
John Cole
Before this thread gets too derailed, let me point out what I said in the top post- whether or not you think this law is a good or bad thing, it is now here with us to stay. You have two choices. You can work to elect majorities to overturn those state laws, or you can work to make sure that everyone has what they need to get their vote cast.
Huffing and puffing about the right wing supreme court accomplishes nothing.
Fargus
It should be easier to get IDs. Sure. I can buy that. I have no problem with it. But that doesn’t mean then that you should have to have that ID to vote. That’s the leap that’s completely unjustified here.
Perhaps it should be made easier to obtain IDs, and people should be encouraged to register to vote when they obtain their ID, just on top of something that they’re already doing. Checking a box on the form to obtain their ID, for example. I have no problem with that.
But again, making the IDs easier to obtain does not excuse the idiocy of making them necessary to vote.
Grumpy Code Monkey
What is the incidence of actual voter fraud, anyway?
And what is the corresponding incidence of election or campaign fraud committed by election officials (such as ballot-box stuffing or “losing” results from a particular precinct)?
And which form of fraud has the greater effect on an election?
And are all these questions rhetorical?
ThymeZone
Just a lot of hot air, if you ask me.
:)
Jill
Voting Democratic in November is the only way to ensure that the SCOTUS doesn’t get any more crazy or right-wing. If it weren’t for the fact that POTUS nominates SC Justices I would hope for a MCCain win. This war is a Republican mess and will be hell for the next Prez, but the SCOTUS is in peril if a Republican gets in office next January.
Zifnab
Right, and that is spelled out in the respective Federal and State Constitutions. The legislator has the Constitutional Right to regulate and fund the voting process. How they chose to conduct the voting process is up to them, so long as it does not violate any of the Constitutional Amendments. The SCOTUS has found that the Indiana law does not discriminate against gender or race (14th/19th) and does not erect an unreasonable barrier to entry.
Demanding that people transport themselves to a polling location isn’t unconstitutional. Demanding that people register to vote isn’t unconstitutional. Demanding that people have a photo ID when they show up to vote also isn’t unconstitutional.
I know you don’t like the law, and it certainly isn’t a fair law by even Scalia’s interpretation. But that doesn’t make the law Unconstitutional. I’m really sorry, but that’s just how the legal system works.
Dennis - SGMM
Republicans know well that election fraud is best accomplished at the wholesale, rather than the retail level. OTOH, they can point with pride now to the fact that al-Qaeda will not be allowed to vote in Indiana.
Fargus
Understood. You’re arguing from a practicality standpoint, and that’s where this ultimately has to go, since as you note, the ruling is what it is.
But working within the practical confines of the law doesn’t preclude arguing against it and similarly odious laws, trying to overturn them or prevent them from passing in the first place. Some people clearly don’t understand why it’s any big deal in the first place, and changing that mindset is as important as helping people vote within the constraints placed on them by the state.
chopper
behind the door marked “beware of the leopard”.
Brachiator
This is not true at all. A future SCOTUS could reverse this opinion, depending in part on the dissents lodged in this case.
And of course, as I read this decision, the court ruled that states can mandate IDs, not that they must do so. So you’re right that for now, the battle is pushed to the states.
D-Chance.
Your local DOT. Instead of a driver’s license, you get a similar-looking state ID card. With it, you can cash checks and use it every other situation requiring proof of identity (financial), proof of residency (voting), proof of age (alcohol). And screw the “disproportionate burden” spiel… if they can afford 3 packs of cigarettes, they can get a state ID card.
Pooh
If I can chime in, I DO think the decision is problematic insofar as it overturns the traditional interpretations of provisions of the Voting Rights Act (which was created to deal with the various nasty facially neutral things the Jim Crow south did to prevent blacks from voting.)
Essentially, it USED to be the province of the Justice Departments voting rights division to give this kind of thing a resounding thumbs down, but since the very villainously named Hans von Spakowski (seriously) took over, not so much.
This is sort of of a piece with the Ledbetter decision, where, in a vacuum, it’s a plausible reading, it’s just a reading that’s completely at odds with how the issue has been decided by every American court ever…
Punchy
It is if it costs money. And if you think the gov’t will give these out free, you’re crazy.
Ergo, I fail to see how this isn’t a subtle poll tax.
Pooh
Right, and it isn’t difficult to suss out the discriminatory motive insofar as proponents can’t point to any instances of, you know, actual voter fraud.
Kirk Spencer
Just so everyone’s got the facts to hand, I’m copying two pages from the Indiana Secretary of State’s website.
First:
and Second:
Worth noting — as part of Indiana’s law, a photo-ID card can be obtained for free at any BMV office that issues drivers licenses. As others have noted, getting TO that office while it’s open for business may be a bit difficult, but there is that small fact.
ThymeZone
I know you don’t like the law, and it certainly isn’t a fair law by even Scalia’s interpretation. But that doesn’t make the law Unconstitutional. I’m really sorry, but that’s just how the legal system works.
Really? Then how have we avoided poll tests all these years? Why did we have to wait until the 21st Century to get these laws?
This is how the legal system works? Then, apparently, America doesn’t actually work, and that is okay with you.
Great argument, really. I wish I had thought of it.
It’s a bad law. You can post whatever you want, it’s still a bad law. If the “way the legal system works” doesn’t protect the most basic rights and liberties from that system, then what the fuck good is it?
Darkness
Well, on the upside at least the whiny-ass politico children in these states can find something else to do… like harassing poor pregnant women like Jesus intended.
Like Sinister Eyebrow says above, it’d be interesting to take it back to the court with a state where ids cost $50 and say, “so since poll taxes are unconstitutional, how much poll tax is too much poll tax?” Expecting reason from the Supreme Court since 2000 is naive anyway.
But back to the ID laws; I honestly think they hurt the republicans more than the democrats. Just like all these fake red state issues, this one exist only to drum up fake outrage among the dittoheads, so it would not surprise me if their numbers on who it affects more are wrong. I mean, the guys pushing for this are hardly sharp on the science/statistics front. If I may use horrendous cliché unPC categorizations to make my point: It’s the welfare sucking trailer dems who have all their documents in order to milk the system and the black helicopter fearing repubs who think getting an id just means telling Them where you live.
Kirk Spencer
I happen to agree with Jon. There’s a huge source of inequity in there, and that’s the fact that absentee ballots do not require voter ID (or affidavit thereof).
And in Georgia (among some other states), you can get an absentee ballot pretty much for the asking. Select “No Reason”, mail the request form to the registrar, and the ballot will be mailed to your address of registration. Oh, wait, it gets worse. Pretty much any family member can request this ballot on your behalf. No proof of relation is required.
Want to really mess things up in Georgia? Claim to be related and request absentee ballots for many, many people. Note that making this claim is a crime, of course, just like voting illegally. sigh
Davis X. Machina
What happened to strict scrutiny?
Is there a compelling state interest?
Is the measure narrowly tailored to address only the harm?
Is this the least restrictive means to address the harm?
It was my understanding that if you don’t clear hurdle #1, you don’t even get to propose the measure.
And the showing of a compelling state interest in this case is very, very thin.
From Stevens’ opinion:
ThymeZone
That’s an interesting possibility that I hadn’t thought of today in my zeal to have unfettered righteous rage.
But still …. the law sucks.
Darkness
>Demanding that people transport themselves to a polling location isn’t unconstitutional.
Why not? The good people of Oregon don’t have to go to a polling station. Why do they have more constitutional rights than me in New York. I mean, really?
>And in Georgia (among some other states), you can get an absentee ballot pretty much for the asking.
I’ve tried to get an absentee ballot for NY and it wasn’t that easy. After all the hassle of applying at just the right time (not too early, not too late), the state put the wrong postage on it to send it overseas and it arrived a month after the deadline to send it back again. I would have happily voted early before I left. Why I can’t when people in other states can boggles my mind. If voting is a constitutional right guaranteed at the Federal level, why all these different rules anyhow?
Cyrus
I know two people who I’m pretty sure don’t have any picture IDs. One of them, I don’t really know why she doesn’t, but she doesn’t drive. The other doesn’t drive either, and in this case I do know why: she has a minor form of epilepsy that would make driving dangerous. She’s always lived in cities with public transportation systems that are at least good enough for the bare necessities. Neither of them is all that interested in travel outside the country, and if they want to go to Canada you don’t need a passport for that anyway. (Did that change recently?) Incidentally, they’re both college-educated women in their twenties. No, I don’t find it hard to believe that there is a large fraction of likely voters who don’t have a valid, current, government-issued picture ID.
Darkness
>But still …. the law sucks.
Yes, definitely. But I like to think the republicans are about to have a serious “be careful what you wish for” moment.
But back to John’s point way back up there. I think the dems, being more organized at this time, can take disproportionate advantage of the situation. Just consider it another area of volunteer mobilization. Help people get ids and register to vote. I walked about 50 miles from door to door before the 2006 election. I’m not sure I made a bit of difference, honestly. I’d much prefer to drive people to the DMV for ids and voter registration. Sign me up for that duty. Service with a smile.
CFisher
If one is outraged by this, (which I am not) a more satisfying solution would be to organize caravans or buses during voter registration drives to get these people IDs and then bus them straight over to the polling place to cast ballots to kick the folks who passed the law out.
I don’t know. I’m one of those and I have a Driver’s license. There are some things in life you have to accept, unless you want to live out in the praries eating gopher and listening for the sound of black helicopters.
And if you’re that guy, you probably spend election day in your Unabomber style shack writing manifestos, not voting. ;)
Dave_Violence
Criminals, illegal aliens, others, I’m sure. In New York City, there’s a signature on file at the correct polling place – they got that signature when I sent in my voter registration, I show my ID (usually my driver’s license), but I still have to sign next to my signature, which they verify. No problem.
I understand the poll tax argument, but the big picture argument wins: get yourself a valid State ID, shut up and vote, duh.
Psycheout
The poor are uninformed anyway. If this keeps them from voting en masse for democrats because they are given free crack, all the better.
Seriously, if people are too lazy to get id, they are probably too stupid (or illegal) to vote. Think about it.
Crust
Kevin Drum makes a critical point. The evidence of voting fraud cited in the majority opinion in favor of this measure consists of:
1. an example from 1868,
2. an example involving a single person in a different state and
3. an example from Indiana that would not actually be remedied by this measure (because it involves absentee voting).
In other words, the alleged justification for this law — to reduce in person voter fraud — is just bogus. Sure, this doesn’t rise to the level of Bush v. Gore, but it’s still bogus. The real justification is that it will reduce Democratic turnout more than Republican turnout. It’s that simple.
Zifnab
Blah blah blah, yeah that’s great. But are they hot?
Zifnab
This sort of legislation certainly goes a lot farther towards disenfranchising anyone living in rural America than those living in the big cities. Since living in large urban areas tends to make you vote blue, I can definitely see this backfiring rather hard on Republicans when all those poor white people can’t vote anymore.
That said, it doesn’t really go very far to prevent the ballot stuffing and Diebold hacking that the GOP has employed in ’00 and ’04. Lower voter turn out just makes it that much easier to cheat.
Andrew
The Supreme Court Justices didn’t have a problem getting driver’s licenses. Why should anybody else?
Punchy
Now, instead of the hard questions being asked at the voting place, where there’s ample media and reporters on election day, they just perform their shenanigans in the DMV.
Peeps might notice a bunch of Mexys getting a thumbs-down on Nov. 3rd at the local elly school, but everyone goes Schultz if those same questionables gets the bum-rush at the IDOT on Nov. 2.
Same disenfranchisment, new place.
jake
Proposed new title for this blog entry:
Vote rID.
The Other Steve
I think everybody should be required to show a Passport before being allowed to vote.
Ah ha! Now only French loving elitists will be voting!
The Other Steve
At least if it happens in August, there is time to do something about it.
Brachiator
Hmm. I can get a job by showing my old expired US Passport, but apparently could not vote in Indiana.
db
All this Voter ID stuff is such a sham! ID required to vote in person but not by mail. Is this really going to protect against supposed election fraud?
If I am going to commit election fraud, wouldn’t I be more likely to do it by mail than in-person?
Blue Raven
The “but people I know don’t have ID these days” argument is interesting in the “may be specious” sense. I can believe the off-the-grid folks, but anyone with a standard job in the US these days has faced a piece of paper called the I-9. It’s how you establish your right to work in the US for the sake of the INS. Requires either a passport/green card or two forms of ID, such as state-issued ID and Social Security card. Unless I miss my guess, if someone doesn’t have photo ID that’s considered valid, they’re either working under the table or not working and not drawing on public assistance. So, how the hell are 13% of Indiana voters NOT carrying ID?
Xanthippas
I can understand that, but as far as I’m concerned, whenever a Republican legislator dishonestly hypes a non-existent problem so as to pass legislation that really is aimed at keeping largely Democratic voters at home, then I’m utterly and completely opposed to it,
Aaron
The Supreme Court, those final guarantors of our legal rights, has once again sold out the rights of large numbers of minorities, the elderly, and the handicapped in favor of Republican lies.
Thanks for nothing.
Brachiator
Hmm. Let’s see. At one point I lost my wallet, which contained my current ID and Social Security card. During this time, I indeed applied for a new job, where I showed my old, long expired U.S. Passport, which was totally valid for Form I-9 purposes, but which would not allow me to vote in Indiana.
During this same time, since local merchants knew me, I never had to show ID for anything. And of course, I never had to show ID at my polling station. It would be insane to have to do so, since some of the volunteer polling workers are my neighbors and we have known each other for years.
There are all kinds of reasons that people may not have current ID. But ultimately, even as a state issue, it sounds like people just have a jones for making people conform. There is no real problem that the issue of IDs is solving, other than adding a pointless level of inconvenience.
As others have noted here, even as a state issue, any potential law impacting voters should be based on a compelling state issue, not whether only a small number of people might be inconvenienced.
dj spellchecka
sorry to disagree with john, but i am going to bitch about the decision. it was ridiculous.
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “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 — demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
see, since there was no proof of any actual in person fraud, stevens had to fall back on the possibility of in person fraud. the “risk” of it. the chances of it actually happening is probably the same as getting hit by a meteor but hey, there you are.
AkaDad
This is just another manufactured problem that doesn’t exist, and it’s a distraction to the real problem of election fraud coordinated and executed by the Republicans.
Richard Bottoms
>But I can see how it would be a major problem for quite a few >folks.
There are things worth fight over, in the 21st century expecting people have a goddamn ID card isn’t one of them.
Spend your money in fighting voter registration tactics designed to keep people from voting, ID or not.
Jesus.
Richard Bottoms
>get yourself a valid State ID, shut up and vote, duh.
No shit.
Martin
We protect against potential threats all the time. Aren’t progressives fighting hard for better security and code certification for electronic voting machines on the ‘risk’ of widespread voter fraud? Won’t that make them more expensive and therefore increase the burden on poor communities to find money to buy them, taking other services away from needy communities? Do we have any more evidence that elections are being stolen by Evil Nerds for a Better America™?
I’m not saying that I agree with the law, but I don’t see that it’s inherently unconstitutional or any worse than comparable measures being proposed. Funny that the party of “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” are giving the government a pass and instead shutting down voters, but really the depths of GOP hypocrisy no longer surprise me.
Xenos
The obvious solution is for some Democrats to engineer a massive scheme for fraudulent absentee voting by illegal immigrants. Think of it as civil disobedience. Once the GOP loses a senator or a governership to something like that, they will tighten up the absentee voting in a hurry.
ThymeZone
There ya go. Government fucks with you, just shut up and comply. Bigger fish to fry.
In 1962, my high school American History teacher asserted to my class at 9:00 am that rights and freedoms had to be defended at the fringes. The things that seem small, or the people who seem powerless, are the ones that you defend vigorously, because that way, the motherfuckers — er, the powerful, as he called them — never get close to the big things, and to the middle of the population. You fight at the fringes.
His words rang true to me in 1962, and they still do today. This (decision today) is not a small thing, it’s a defeat for the rights of little people. A small one, but a defeat, and it’s important.
nightjar
This what’s so absurd about all of this. If you live in a border state, or for that matter any state with illegal immigrants, you know that showing up at a polling place to vote or to register to vote absentee and thereby committing a felony, is the last place they would go.
99% percent just want to work anonymously and send money back to their starving relatives.
jake
In answer to a question asked earlier:
Of course, the problem with balancing basic rights based on the number of people impacted against a wholly imaginary threat plops you right in the middle of Moral Relativismville where you neighbors are putzes like J. Yoo and A. Scalia.
TenguPhule
Our next requirement to vote will be a basic IQ test.
There will be no Republicans punching ballots after that.
Psycheout
Note to TZ: the sixties are over. The Reagan Revolution is still in effect.
That is all.
PAULQX
It is so obvious what is going to happen here. This is going to totally muck up the election with people being turned away in record numbers because they don’t have the proper i.d.. Of course even if there are movers by the Democratic party to get registered voters i.d.’s we will see that in red states there will just be “too many applications to handle” and people will never get their i.d. till after the election. There is no way in hell the intrenched right wing fascists are going to give up power in this country short of a massive popular uprising which is what the concentration camps were built for. This voter i.d. canard is just one tactic. Expect a repeat of every dirty trick used in 2000 and 2004. Why not, they got away with it? Just remember that the best way to determine if voter fraud has happened is to see if the exit polls match the vote results and they did not in 2000 or 2004. Expect the same in 2008.
moderate indy
First, Yes, people voting too often is the real problem with our electoral process. Second, Sure them illegal aliens vote illegally all the time. They’re always putting themselves at risk of deportation by showing up at government facilities and attempting to commit fraud.
If voting is a constitutional right and not a privilege like driving a car, then the burden of proof should lay with the state and not the individual. Some standards can be imposed. I am an election judge in IL and there are times when an ID is asked for when discrepancies pop up. For the most part comparing someone’s signature on their ballot to the one that is on record from their registration should be more than reasonable enough for anyone.
Lastly, for you morons that think that there is no reason that people shouldn’t have an ID….it must be nice to not actually know any poor or old people. I work with both, in a social service capacity, and let me tell you, someone that works full time, at a low wage job, can’t just take off at lunch to go to the DMV, and can’t afford to pay a babysitter to watch their kids to go on the weekend. Plus, there are a crap load of people out there that would actually suffer financial hardship if they had to spend 10-15 bucks for an ID. Would any of you skip feeding your family for a day just to have an ID so you could vote. Don’t worry I’m sure you’ll never face such trying times and you can just go along being a self righteous uncaring asshole.
liberal
Richard Bottoms wrote, Just plain silly. Who doesn’t have an ID these days?
Uh, poor elderly inner city blacks, for one?
liberal
Martin wrote, We protect against potential threats all the time. Aren’t progressives fighting hard for better security and code certification for electronic voting machines on the ‘risk’ of widespread voter fraud?
Invalid analogy.
We can get a handle on the actual amount of in-person fraud occurring. On the other hand, it’s possibly very difficult to get a handle on the amount of electronic voter tampering that’s occurring. Clumsy attempts might be easy to detect, but given how crappy the electronic voting products out there are, sophisticated attempts would be very difficult to detect.
That is to say, the empirical aspects of the two are simply not comparable.
Finally, at a theoretical level, engineering enough in-person fraud to throw Federal level elections would be very difficult. Sure, you could corrupt smaller local contests, but from a cost-benefit viewpoint, it’s probably not worth it. Federal elections are another matter.
liberal
Zifnab wrote, There’s no poll tax here. The state has the right to put this burden on the citizenry.
False. Because of the history of race-based barriers to voting in the US, any burden on citizens’ right to exercise their vote faces more scrutiny.
You can argue that these measures pass test based on some practical consideration, but you can just make the claim without any evidence or argument.
Given the fact that (1) there’s no evidence that in-person fraud occurs much at all, (2) obtaining IDs is a burden on certain voters, (3) the legislatures intent is highly suspicious, it’s quite reasonable to argue that the measure doesn’t pass constitutional muster.
merl
I’ve been absentee voting for almost 16 years.
liberal
“…but you can just make the claim without any evidence or argument.” ==> “…but you cannot just make the claim without any evidence or argument.”
grandpajohn
Of course it is which is exactly why they are pushing it. It’s like the magicians misdirection that takes your eye away from what is really happening
LongHairedWeirdo
Big problem: the court said that if they had reason to believe people were being denied the right – not the privilege, but the *right* – to vote, they might have decided differently.
And how would they determine that? Because the collection of “people having a difficult time producing photo IDs” is such a powerful lobbying group with access to the courts and funding and sometimes even own Cable news channels?
If these people were discriminated against, the odds are no one would know. So, what the court has essentially done is said “it’s okay to discriminate if we don’t end up having to hear people yap about it for real… as long as it’s only hypothetical – possibly real, but unproven – then it’s okay.”
I also agree with those who say that if the ID costs a nickel, it’d be a nickel poll tax. And, IMHO, just having a program for free photo IDs isn’t enough.
This isn’t a very popular view, but I think it should be. There are a lot of times where the government can screw us, and not care about us, and ignore every one of us, from the least powerful to the most. But when it comes to making sure every one of us votes, and has the opportunity to do so, they should be on their knees, kissing our feet, and remembering that they don’t exist, but for us. This nation was founded on that principle, that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. (And yes, I know, only white property owners, shut up about that ugly reality and let me pretend the dream still matters, though dreamed up by flawed dreamers!)
lou
Posting late on this issue, but I have in-laws in Indy. Part of the problem is good ole Mitch Daniels cut back the motor vehicle bureaus — closed down something like half the stations to save $$. That meant people in rural areas would have to drive up to 100 miles to get to the nearest bureau to renew their licenses. Beyond the poll tax of having to buy an id, the cost of gas, especially now, is pretty burdensome. How do you convince someone to drive 22 miles round trip so you can get an id you’ll use every two years?
A lot of elderly people don’t have id. they don’t even have birth certificates because they were born before those were required. that’s part of the problem.