Tuesday, September 25, 2007

SUPREMES ACCEPT VOTER ID CASE

Indiana requires voters to show government-issued photo identification before casting their ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear arguments on whether the law goes too far.

Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times has the money graf:
As in many constitutional disputes, the choice of standard will drive the case. If strict scrutiny applies, the state will have to show not just that voter fraud is a valid reason for requiring identification, but that impersonating a registered voter is such a serious problem in Indiana that it justifies a remedy that will predictably deter members of identifiable groups from voting at all.
Missouri's Supreme Court struck down a Voter ID law last year. The SCOTUS decision should come down next summer -- too late for the regular legislative session, but if the big dogs uphold Indiana's law, look for Missouri lawmakers to try to force a special session so they can pass a similar law and get it activated by the November election.

Supporters of Voter ID laws say we live in a society that requires identification; the "you have to show ID to write a check" argument is shopworn (and fast becoming outdated as people use debit cards to swipe away their money without every flashing a license). Writing a check isn't a right. Neither is driving. Both privileges require showing identification when asked. Voting is a right. Should government force you to show ID to exercise a right?

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes. That would shut Jesse Jackson up. And speaking of "shopworn," the phrase "voter disenfranchisement" qualifies as well.

Larry Litle said...

If we can find a way to provide needed ID for those that do not have it and a way to curb voter fraud, then I am in favor of it. Arena of Ideas had a very good post on it yesterday.

Jason said...

I think since 2000 we've seen that voter fraud is very real and if we have ways to counter it then those steps should be taken.

I would like to see if any of the opponents of this measure have provided viable options to make sure only legal, registered citizens are voting.

Anonymous said...

And... only voting ONCE.

Shak El said...

Every adult should be able to vote as is..to prevent fraud ink their fingers like the Iraqi's did. All these plans are nothing more that the Right's attempt to restrict the ballot; the fewer people who vote the easier for the Right to win.

Anonymous said...

Not that old wives' tale again...

Jason said...

"Every adult should be able to vote as is..to prevent fraud ink their fingers like the Iraqi's did. All these plans are nothing more that the Right's attempt to restrict the ballot; the fewer people who vote the easier for the Right to win."

Shak El, some could claim the attempts to block requiring ID is an attempt by the left to allow non-citizens to vote because the majority of them support the Democratic party.

Neither claim has evidence to back it up.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of evidence, what voter fraud has occurred in MIssouri that merits this drastic change in our laws? In one election, has there been five people, ten people, convicted of voting fraud statewide?

You can say this is not an attempt by the right to restrict a certain group of voters, but it clearly is a Repubican initiative. Whie we can speculate about the motives, it clearly seems to be a solultion in search of a problem.

Complaint Department Manager said...

So there hasn't been voter fraud in Missouri...YET. Prevention is the key. I don't have any problem at all showing my ID before voting. Now, if I can just get checkout clerks to see my ID when I use my credit card...