SCOTUS Justices Indicate They May Uphold Voter ID Rules

[Wakey]

New and improved Supreme Court, thanks GWB!

Poll tax my ass, Georgia even offered to provide free ID cards to those that "could not afford them".

Get bent lieberals

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
NY Times
Published: January 10, 2008
WASHINGTON — There are many ways to lose a Supreme Court case, and by the end of an argument that was before the court on Wednesday, the Democrats who were challenging Indiana’s voter-identification law appeared poised to lose theirs in a potentially sweeping way, with implications for many future election cases.

The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that voter-impersonation fraud is not a problem, so requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute, the strictest voter-identification law in the country, was improperly brought in the first place. Such a ruling could make it much more difficult to challenge any new state election regulations before they go into effect.

The Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the 2005 law before it went into effect, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional on its face and could not be enforced even against the majority of Indiana voters who could easily produce the required photo ID. Such an approach, known as a “facial challenge,” is the standard way of attacking election regulations like the poll taxes that the Supreme Court struck down in the 1960s and more recent redistricting and ballot-access cases.

But the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has displayed deep skepticism toward such challenges, most notably on the subject of abortion, on the grounds that they require courts to step outside a limited role of resolving concrete disputes brought by parties with actual injuries.

“You seem to accept that a facial challenge is appropriate here,” Justice Antonin Scalia said with evident disapproval to Thomas M. Fisher, the Indiana solicitor general, who was defending a lower court’s judgment that the law was constitutional.

Indiana, in fact, had not objected to the form in which the case was brought. That argument was introduced by the Bush administration, which entered the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, No. 07-21, after the Supreme Court agreed in September to hear it. In the administration’s brief, Solicitor General Paul D. Clement urged the justices to uphold “principles of judicial restraint” by rejecting the facial challenge.

Joining Mr. Fisher in arguing for the state on Wednesday, Mr. Clement said the court should wait for a case to be brought by someone who was actually barred by the statute from casting a ballot. Such a lawsuit “could focus like a laser beam” on particular problems, Mr. Clement said, adding that if such a case were successful, it would have the virtue of producing a remedy that solved the problem without invalidating the entire law.

Justice David H. Souter countered, “That would be a virtue, but one of the vices would be that it would be after the election, and the entire matter would be academic for another two years.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg raised a similar objection. “The reason they are bringing a facial challenge is because the horse is going to be out of the barn,” she said. “They will have the election, and just what they are afraid of could happen — that the result will be skewed in favor of the opposite party.”

Justice Ginsburg’s subtle but unmistakable allusion was to the partisan context in which voter identification laws, recently adopted by a handful of Republican-dominated states, are being debated. Democrats charge that the true purpose of the laws is to deter participation by some predictably Democratic voters, particularly poor people and members of minority groups who are less likely than others to have driver’s licenses or passports.

The Bush administration has raised the suspicions of Democrats by making what they call “voter fraud” a priority for Justice Department enforcement. No prosecution for impersonating a registered voter, the type of fraud that would be prevented by a photo requirement, has ever been brought, however. “No one has been punished for this kind of fraud in living memory in this country,” Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer arguing for the Democrats, told the justices. (That might be because there are no concrete laws concerning this)

In his opinion last year upholding the Indiana law, Judge Richard A. Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit agreed with the Democratic plaintiffs that the law would fall more heavily on Democrats than on Republicans. But that did not make the statute unconstitutional, he said.

On Wednesday, discussion of the law’s justification, and of the extent of the burden it placed on voters, was inconclusive. Mr. Fisher, Indiana’s lawyer, said that because photo identification was “necessary to do so many everyday activities,” the number of those affected was “infinitesimal.” Mr. Smith said the number was more likely in the hundreds of thousands.

Under the Indiana law, voters who are turned away for lack of identification may cast provisional ballots, which are counted only if the voter travels to the county clerk’s office within 10 days to show the required identification or sign a sworn statement that he cannot afford to obtain such an identification. The plaintiffs have argued that this extra step and required travel create an unnecessary burden that other states with identification requirements do not impose; those states do not require voters to make a second trip in order to have a provisional counted.

Chief Justice Roberts, who grew up in Indiana, did not seem to find the burden excessive. “County seats aren’t very far for people in Indiana,” he said.

Mr. Smith replied that the county seat in Lake County was a 17-mile bus ride from the county’s urban center of Gary. “If you’re indigent, that’s a significant burden,” he said. The chief justice also seemed unimpressed by the absence of known voter impersonators. “It’s a type of fraud that, because it’s fraud, it’s hard to detect,” he said to Mr. Smith.

Justice Scalia interrupted the debate over the law’s impact in order to frame his argument against facial challenges.

“Why are we arguing about whether there is one-half of one percent of the electorate who may be adversely affected and as to whom it might be unconstitutional?” he asked Mr. Fisher, adding: “This court is sitting back and looking at the ceiling and saying, oh, we can envision not the case before us, but other cases. Maybe it’s one-half of one percent or maybe it’s 45 percent, who knows. But we can imagine cases in which this law could be unconstitutional, and therefore, the whole law is unconstitutional. That’s not ordinarily the way courts behave, is it?”

“I should hope not,” the Indiana solicitor general replied.

[BusaDave]

I've been avoiding much of an opinion on this, but it seems as easy way to mandatory photo ID in order to exercise your Constutional rights. I have to admit I always thought of this as a bit Orwellian. I guess it's still a "choice" if you don't drive, cash checks, or vote.

I suppose I'm a bit influenced by coming from a small town where people pretty much knew you anyway.

[bumblebee]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

I've been avoiding much of an opinion on this, but it seems as easy way to mandatory photo ID in order to exercise your Constutional rights. I have to admit I always thought of this as a bit Orwellian. I guess it's still a "choice" if you don't drive, cash checks, or vote.

I suppose I'm a bit influenced by coming from a small town where people pretty much knew you anyway.

I agree that the idea of having to show our "papers" in order to vote does smell of "1984," especially like BusaDave, I came from a small coal mining town where I knew who lived in probably 75% of the houses in town.

But, I have lived most of my adult life in an urban environment, where I have lived next to people for months and don't even know their names or speak to them other than to say "Hi" once a month.

I don't believe it is too much an intrusion to show a photo ID to vote. You have to provide documentation in order to register to vote, so I don't have a problem with verifying my identity at the polls.

At least verifying your identity at the polls keep those people residing in the cemetery in Chicago from casting ballots

[Antimatter]

...twofold. 1) If you can't require a person to get a government issued ID, how can you require it to vote? And, if you're going to be stringent in your enforcement of voter ID, how do you allow a person to correct any deficiency to their voting registration in a timely manner that will still allow them time to vote.

And, 2) For what purpose has the law been written? Has there been evidence of widespread voter corruption? Is there a specific body of case law that shows a need for more stringent voter ID laws? The answer is, of course, no. And, furthermore, if you're going to require this why not include 'motor/voter' laws that allow a person to register to vote when they obtain or renew their driver's license? The answer is that Republicans have made a science out of 'voter caging', that is throwing up procedural road blocks to prevent certain groups from voting.

*Ahem* All Republicans who support this repeat after me:

"Let's not put new laws on the books, lets just enforce the ones that we have. There's no need to further restrict the rights of citizens to partake in activities that are protected by the Constitution."

Sound familiar?

[Wakey]

Originally Posted by Antimatter

And, 2) For what purpose has the law been written? Has there been evidence of widespread voter corruption?

1) Timely manner? Be prepared. I bet people were worried when door knobs were invented. Think of all the helpless souls that will walk flat into a door that wont open without a little input.

2) Sham argument. If there is no real way to ID people how can anyone prove that dead people are voting?

No matter, this is looking like it's finally decided

[mikem317]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

I've been avoiding much of an opinion on this, but it seems as easy way to mandatory photo ID in order to exercise your Constutional rights. I have to admit I always thought of this as a bit Orwellian. I guess it's still a "choice" if you don't drive, cash checks, or vote.

Dave, you think that this is much of a burden, you'd be surprised of the amount of fiery hoops you need to jump through in the state of Massachusetts to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

[mikem317]

It does sound a little like "Show me das papers now!"

At any rate, I don't really have an opinion on this, but maybe I should. It does sound Orwellian, but is that a byproduct, or is that their intention? Maybe that's not a relevant criterion anyway.

If you're not carrying ID, isn't that tantamount to vagrancy anyway in most states?

[PhilB]

I support requiring some sort of proof of ID and residency to vote. Voting fraud is an issue, and there are plenty of instances where it has been done. Most recently (that is to say, within the last week), NH's-register-at-the-polls-without-ID rules have allowed bussed-in voting fraud on a significant scale (this is not a new problem there). Voting by non-citizen immigrants comes up from time to time as well; we've certainly seen this in CA.

Voting is not actually a right. It is a privilege of citizenship. It is thus acceptable to require some reasonable proof of eligibility to vote. It must not be discriminatory, that is, it may not disqualify people who are citizens and eligible to vote. But if you are going to have elections, they need to be valid and verifiable.

I agree that it is wrong to require ID (or the carrying of such) in daily life. And it might be appropriate to allow various forms of ID other than an official government picture ID to vote. Student ID, Work ID, signed affadavit with two local witnesses, maybe other possibilities. Another issue can be that if you are homeless, you often aren't allowed to vote because you have no address to register at. That isn't right; you're still a citizen and hold that privilege. So some judgement will be needed from time to time. But the bottom line is that it should be OK to expect people to demonstrate eligibility to vote.

PhilB

[mikem317]

The only reason that Democrats are opposed to this plan has little to nothing to do with social liberties, rights, privileges, or whatever you want to call it.

It's about control. Namely, their control. Elected Democrats are smart. They know that one of their biggest bases is the underprivileged or lower class. This class works lower to middle waged jobs, and struggle to make ends meet. Maybe it's a result of poor decision making in life, bad luck, bad health, or whatever. Certainly a topic worthy of it's own discussion thread.

As a result, this socioeconomic group are less likely to have government-issued IDs, like driver's licenses. And if driver's licenses are required to be furnished to the old lady manning the ballot station on election day, they see it as tantamount to poll tax or literacy tests prior to voting, which is illegal.

In Massachusetts when I was younger, I'm sure I could've voted as my brother when we were living in the same household. He registered, but never voted. Just didn't care. But what's stopping me from impersonating him? I know his name, I know his address, what's stopping me? I'll arrive sometime before lunch, impersonate him, vote for Candidate X, leave, come back after dinner, tell granny my real name, and vote for Candidate X again.

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with what's right or how we can prevent voter fraud. It has everything to do with control.

[Wakey]

Judges dissect challenge to voter ID law
High court skeptical that rule is burden


By Robert Barnes
Washington Post / January 10, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court appeared unmoved yesterday by arguments that an Indiana law requiring voters to present photo identification imposes an unconstitutional burden. Some justices, however, appeared to search for a middle ground on the divisive and partisan political issue.

The issue goes far beyond Indiana, as states with Republican-majority legislatures are pushing similar laws, saying they combat fraud.

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
more stories like thisVoting rights specialists see the legal battle over Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law as the most starkly partisan case to reach the court since Bush v. Gore decided the presidential election in 2000.

And the court's questioning during an hourlong oral argument broke quickly along its own ideological divide. But the justice most often in recent years to play the decisive role - Anthony Kennedy - made it clear that he did not share the challengers' view of the burden that producing a photo ID imposes.

"You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?" Kennedy asked Washington lawyer Paul Smith, who argued the case on behalf of the Indiana Democratic Party, American Civil Liberties Union, and other Hoosier community groups and individuals.

But Kennedy did join liberal justices in expressing concern about what happens to those registered voters who do not have photo identification. Indiana's law requires them to cast provisional ballots, and then travel to the county seat within 10 days with the proper identification or other documentation such as a certified birth certificate for their votes to be counted.

Kennedy wondered if there were ways in which "the central purpose and the central function of this statute can be preserved but there can be some reasonable alternatives for people who have difficulty?"

The issue goes far beyond Indiana, as states with Republican-majority legislatures are pushing similar laws, saying they are a necessary and common-sense way supported by the public to combat voter fraud. Democrats say the laws do not address the most prevalent forms of fraud such as absentee ballots, but discourage or even disenfranchise those least likely to have a driver's license or passport - the poor, elderly, disabled, or urban dwellers who happen to be most likely to vote Democratic.

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that upheld Indiana's law frankly discussed the political realities - the dissenting Democratic-appointed judge called it a "not-too-thinly veiled attempt" to discourage voters who skew Democratic. But yesterday there were only limited references from the justices to the political advantages at stake in this election year.

Justice John Paul Stevens asked US Solicitor General Paul Clement, who filed a brief on behalf of the Bush administration supporting Indiana, whether it was "fair to infer that this law does have an adverse impact on the Democrats that is different from its impact on the Republicans."

WHAT??? WTF? What does that have to do with anything??

Clement did not answer directly, but told Stevens that if "this was a cleverly designed mechanism by the Republican Party to disadvantage the Democratic Party, at least in 2006 it looks like it went pretty far awry." As in states with or without voter identification laws, Indiana Democrats did better in those elections than the previous one.

The issue goes far beyond Indiana, as states with Republican-majority legislatures are pushing similar laws, saying they combat fraud.

IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS
more stories like thisChief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia led the tough questioning of Smith. Scalia suggested that such a broad attack of the law as unconstitutional was unwarranted.

Roberts pushed hard on a finding of the lower court that the petitioners had not produced a "single person" who had been denied the chance to vote because of the law. Smith responded that there were examples of voters whose provisional ballots were not counted because they had been unable to meet the state's standards.

The two even got into an argument about Indiana geography. When Smith questioned the law's requirement that those without photo ID make their case at the county courthouse, Roberts, who was raised in the state, responded, "County seats aren't very far for people in Indiana."

Smith said it would be a 17-mile bus ride for a poor person in the city of Gary.

Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher told the justices that, as the lower court had found, only "an infinitesimal portion of the electorate could even be, conceivably be, burdened by" the law's requirement.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the impact would be unquestionably on the poor. "That burden is on every indigent person who doesn't have a photo ID, so we are not speculating about numbers," she said.

If the objective of government should be to make it easier for "America to vote, all Americans," she and Justice Stephen Breyer wondered why states did not simply issue photo identification when registering voters. Doo-et!

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. seemed inclined to uphold Indiana's law, but he summed up the quandary for the court.

"If you concede that some kind of voter ID requirement is appropriate, the problem that I have is where you draw the line on a record like this, where there's nothing to quantify in any way the extent of the problem or the extent of the burden," he said. Free ID when registering

A decision in the consolidated cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, should be decided by the court's adjournment at the end of June, in time for the 2008 general elections

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by mikem317

Dave, you think that this is much of a burden, you'd be surprised of the amount of fiery hoops you need to jump through in the state of Massachusetts to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

Try it in Chicago.

[Wakey]

Good, hit the streets and ignore your real problems, get some ID while you are pounding the pavement!

Voter ID law an ugly effort to subvert ballot

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/13/08

If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds Indiana's harsh voter ID law, as it seems poised to do, hundreds of thousands of black Americans should march in protest. So should hundreds of thousands of Latino Americans. Native Americans, too. Political activists from across the ethnic spectrum should convene the biggest political demonstration since the historic March on Washington in 1963.

Where is Al Sharpton when a genuinely critical issue comes along? Where's Jesse Jackson?

CYNTHIA TUCKER
MY OPINION

The GOP-led campaign to pass stringent voter ID laws is a greater injustice than the prosecutions of the Jena Six, more significant than the incarceration of Michael Vick, more damaging than the insulting rants of Don Imus. BAHAHAHAHAHA This is a brazen effort to block the votes of thousands of people of color who might have the temerity to vote for Democrats.<-- Glad she admits this! And it's un-American. SUPPORTS TERRORISTS TOO!

As happened in several states, including Georgia, the then-GOP-dominated Indiana Legislature pushed through a rigid law in 2005 requiring voters to produce a state-sponsored photo ID at the poll. While the Republican spin machine has worked mightily to portray this as an effort to curb voter fraud, it is no such thing. There has never — never — been a single documented case of "voter impersonation" at the ballot box, with a fake voter using an electric bill or phone bill to pretend to be a valid voter. SHAM!

Earlier this month, radio journalist Warren Olney pressed Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita about the prosecution of voter impersonation cases in Indiana. "Oh, yeah. We suspect it happens all the time," Rokita said.

"Suspect?" Olney countered. This will make sure there is no problem, we need accountibility

"Well, are you saying you want to define whether or not there's fraud based on whether or not it's prosecuted?" Rokita answered, adding, "It's a hard type of crime to catch. ... It's hard to catch one in the act."

OK, then. Got that? It's a little like the search for life on other planets. Extra-terrestrials are out there, even if none has actually been spotted. She does however believe in God LOL

(If Republicans were interested in actual voter fraud, they would have tightened the rules for absentee ballots, since that's where most voter fraud occurs. But because absentee voters tend to vote Republican, many GOP-dominated legislatures have made absentee balloting rules less stringent.) Crack vs powder, fix it then

But there is evidence aplenty of this: There are thousands of law-abiding registered voters across the land who have no government-sponsored ID — no passport, no driver's license — and who will be banned from the ballot box if the highest court upholds this highly partisan law. ID card you dumb bitch!

It is difficult for middle-class citizens to believe, I know. If you live in the comfortable economic mainstream, where taking airplane trips and renting DVDs is a routine part of life, you can't imagine voters without a state-sponsored photo ID.

But they're out there. Just ask Mary-Jo Criswell, 71. Her ballot was thrown out when she showed up at her Indiana polling place expecting to use the same forms of ID, including a bank card with a photo, that she had used in the past. She has epilepsy, she says, so she has never had a driver's license.

Citizens like Criswell are Americans, too, and they have every right to vote, just like it says in the Bill of Rights. It is elitism, pure and simple, to suggest that requiring them to obtain a state-sponsored photo ID is a "minor inconvenience." But that's exactly what Justice Anthony Kennedy called it during oral arguments, noting that the law is expected to affect only a small percentage of v