was apparently part of the "khaki riot" that got part of the recount shut down in Florida back in 2000, this was to be expected.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At least (Thank God for small miracles) IDs are free to the poor in Indiana. What I am concerned about is that this ruling will encourage other states, where picture IDs can sometimes be pretty expensive, to now join the voter ID bandwagon.
In the case of those other states it is OBVIOUS to me, if not perhaps to the Supreme Court, that the ID requirement is a de facto poll-tax.

By the way, the kind of voter-fraud which is prevented by a picture-identification requirement is very rare. So, of course, the move by states to institute voter ID requirements is all about discouraging poor voters, especially in states were a picture ID can be a burden to obtain if one is poor or does not live near a license-issuing office.

But, hey, since the Supreme Court is so concerned about VOTER fraud, why not now focus on ELECTION fraud, the kind the comes about due to insecure electronic voting machines and due to hanging chads and the rest. But I am not holding my breath in this regard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but then again, your vote has already been determined, so what's the fuss? thanks dieboldt!

democracy is for those who can afford to buy it

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and why people should be reminded that Supremes can be impeached, too!

They're one away from a 20-year majority.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Most of us here in Indiana have been working under the assumption that the I.D. law would be upheld so this is no great shock. Now what? We are one week away from primary day, so if anyone reading this knows of anyone who needs an I.D., here are the document requirements from the Indiana BMV website, www.in.gov/bmv

http://www.in.gov/bmv/3700.htm

Fortunately we have dealt with this law for the past two election years so there should not be a great number of people without a valid I.D. but this year will see greater turnout than usual. We are working to spread the word.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...who charged that the law was "unconstitutional on it's face".

That's a terribly high standard to prove, given that the law does indeed apply to everyone, and therefore, by definition, is not discriminatory, per se.

On the upside, the Supreme Court, in the majority opinion, pointed to this fact, and left the door wide open for the first plaintiff to show that he or she is an otherwise eligible voter, with current proof of residence, who was specifically disenfranchised due to the "current government-issued picture I.D." law.

Plaintiffs will lick their wounds, learn a lesson about what "equality under the law" really means, and they'll come back and win the issue, I suspect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And it is becoming more apparent they will need to be broken. The leaders in every branch of government are failing the weak and tired they were directed to protect.
All of them are only interested in a system that will give them return rewards for giving their friends the edge over all others.
Some day, hopefully, the evil that King George, Darth Cheney and the right wing Justices wrought on others will double back on them. It won't bring joy and happiness, but certainly relief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just called my Democratic Senator, Ken Nighthorse Salazar and thanked him for not filibustering the fascist SC nominees that that bike riding chimp put before the Senate.
Notice how the Republicans threatened the nuclear option and got their way, but the limp-dick Democrats will not use this tactic...and the Republicans still win.
AMERICA WAKE UP... THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY UNDER THIS "LEADERSHIP" IS NOT THE ANSWER.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in the first place.
There must of been roving gangs of suspicious looking people trying to vote with no ID. There had to be a problem if a law was passed, right?
I know! It was probably the same crew of unsavory librul types who were running around burning American flags every Sunday that inspired the flag burning amendment! All those commies want to do is undermine our great democracy by letting anyone vote who wants to, take away our guns, murder the unborn and burn American flags! No way those homosexual lovin' pinkos should be allowed to vote! This is Amurica!
All you libruls out there should go buy your own country.
We true red, white and blue Amer-cuns stole this one fair and square.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This decision has the effect of treating already registered voters as potential frauds unless they can establish their identity with a government issued photo ID.

From another point of view the decision addresses a problem without any necessity of judging whether voter fraud is real and not hypothetical. This is the gist, as I understand it, of Justice Souter's dissent, “the onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise.” (NYTimes)

It's unfortunate that the law doesn't seem to have any mechanism for dealing with statistical reasoning. That is, there's no burden for the state to demonstrate that elections are affected by fraudulent voting and/or that no important proportion of voters are disenfranchised by the burden of acquiring a photo ID.

The Supreme Court has made a shameful and undemocratic decision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

but I am not so sure that this is not a bad thing - requiring voters to prove that they are in fact who they say they are at the polls. As someone who found over 14 different names under my Social Security number a few years ago, which meant that they could get a driver's license and a voter ID using my Social Security number which most states require now, I do not want my vote to be negated by someone using my Social Security number illegally and/or being allowed to vote because they did not produce proof of who they truly were.

The right to vote is a privilege in this nation. Identity theft is at an all time high here in places like Arizona, California, Texas, Nevada, and points north and east. When we fail to protect our rights, we stand to lose them, as we have all seen here in the last 8 years. If we fail to protect our right to vote, and have that vote counted and fully, we quietly give up that right.

Indiana provides free ID's to those who are poor, elderly, or otherwise in need. Why not push for other states to do the same? Since those who would appear to be the ones with the most difficulty in obtaining such documents may in all probability be those in need of social services, why not issue a photo ID that can be used for voting to program recipients? Instead of fighting voter ID, why not work to get them free for everyone who needs one in every state?

I have been asked to present ID every time I have voted in over 20 different states in this country. It has not only been needed to verify who I was, but to also verify my signature on the voter registration rolls. I have never had a problem with it, either from an ID perspective or a voting perspective. Some posters here have equated these ID's with a poll tax to disenfranchise voters, but I do not see this requirement as such an attempt. I do see it as a way of securing my vote will actually count, as long as I am voting. By changing how ID's are provided to our poorer citizens, we do not place a burden on them, but rather help them to exercise their right to vote and to insure that their vote actually has meaning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Voter ID...the ID checker looks at the picture ,then you, then back at the picture. Then if he/she is unsure...looks at the details to see if age, hair, and eye description matches. If they DON'T, what kinda recourse (read action) will he/she have? Call the police, prevent the voter's entrance, enlist other voters to restrain the person?

All this sucks and is another impediment to democracy!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well, it's a start. The cost of a photo ID is roughly what a poor family today would use for a week or two of food per month. It's a problem for the rural poor, many/most of whom don't have cars; it can be many miles to the county seat, which is the only place where they can obtain a picture ID. For the elderly or disabled who don't own cars, 15 miles might as well be 15,000 miles. But let's be honest here, folks -- how much money do poor rural folks, the elderly and disable contribute to political campaigns? Not much, so they are of no concern.

The goal is to gradually weed out the riff-raff
who don't have the money to be active players in our political system, preferably in a manner less disruptive than those used so far. Voter ID simplifies things. And in a few years,this can be further simplified by requiring everyone who registers to vote to provide proof of adequate income (bank statement, etc.).If you have adequate income and assets, you are likely to be an active and worthy participant (donor) in today's political system, and therefore deserving of the right to vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... state drivers licenses are still backwards pieces of paper without photo's?...

I don't get it...
why the negative press on ensuring a person is who they say they are while being able to confirm with a drivers license that that are as pictured and a living/resident in the riding they are voting in/for!

whats the big deal?
I'm thinking that we should be supporting this not denigrating it!
This pendulum absolutely swings both ways... its not an us vs them issue so stop making it one!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]