Supreme Court to consider whether voter ID law is constitutional

[Demeter]

Source: McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday will step into a partisan clash over access to the ballot box that's escalated since the fight over "hanging chads'' in the presidential election of 2000.

The justices will hear diametrically opposite depictions of Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law, which requires every voter to present a photo ID card.

Democrats and civil rights groups charge that the law is a Republican ploy to prevent thousands of poor, elderly and minority citizens from casting ballots.

Republicans say that it won't prevent any qualified person from voting. Instead, they say, it guards against vote fraud and heightens public confidence in the integrity of elections.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/24395.html

[roseBudd]

1. And to think a year ago there were some on DU who argued for photo ID

This is about trimming the voter roles of eligible low income people.

[Brother_1969]

2. and reducing the size of the black vote

in a year with the first credible black presidential candidate in history.

What a coincidence!

[TechBear_Seattle]

3. I fail to see how positive ID of voters is a bad thing

Picture identification is required in many places in our society: employment, banking, travel, check writing, driving, getting into most drinking establishments. Why should it not be a requirement for voting? I don't see how it is possible for people to live without some form of picture identification; those that do have far bigger problems (like how are they going to cash their payroll or SS checks) than worry about being disenfranchised.

[happyslug]

4. The problem is people who do NOT have it.

Such people EXIST and are LEGAL VOTERS. Requiring a PHOTO ID is requiring them to SPEND MONEY both to get the ID OR to go someplace to get the ID (Or to get the paperwork needed to get the ID).

Now, what I expect to happen is for the Supreme Court to rule that Requiring Photo ID is NOT unconstitutional, BUT the ID required MUST be Free (i.e. NO FEES either directly or indirectly). Furthermore if the State issuing the ID requires some other paperwork to support the issuance of the ID, the STATE must ge that paperwork OR IT MUST BE FREE TO OBTAIN (i.e. NOT EVEN REQUIRING POSTAGE). That is the best solution to this non-problem. The people who are demanding photo ID will get it, and the people who are worried about the COST to those who presently do NOT have photo ID will have those concerns addressed.

Now, after that decision I see every state REFUSING to require Photo ID for the States will NOT want to issue them for Free.

[joeglow3]

15. I think we need something like this

NPR had a good piece on this this morning. In Indiana, they ARE provided free. The difficulty is in getting one. For instance, a lady could not afford the $50 fee to get her birth certificate from another state. Another lady was denied because her birth certificate did not match her married name (imagine that).

I don't have a problem with requiring a photo ID, but a LOT more work needs to be done.

[WinkyDink]

8. Not having a voice to change one's situation is THE biggest affront to a CITIZEN.

[Demeter]

12. You'd Be Surprised What People Live Without, Even In America

You ought to get out more, break out of that comfortable little cocoon you snuggle in.

[desk]

11. Come on.

So I am assuming that people don't think people should need to
show ID to buy guns? Or do you think poor blacks should not be
allowed to buy them?

[nealmhughes]

5. It is the equivalent of a poll tax. Plain and simple, it's a poll tax.

Why not a literacy test next?

[happyslug]

6. Look at the 24th Amendment (Anti-Poll tax Amendment)

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 24

Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am24.html

Note the term "poll tax or other tax". The issue then becomes is the fee to get an ID that is required so you can vote a "tax"? If it is a tax it is unlawful, but if you make the argument that the fee is to get an ID that can be used anywhere, including where you vote, it is NOT a tax, but a fee needed to make the ID, for a person may need the ID for other purposes.

I view ANY cost to vote (and that includes any fee to get to the voting place is a Poll Tax and illegal under the 24th Amendment. Please note I know most people DRIVE to their voting place, but as long as they could WALK to the polling place the fact pele drive and it cost them gasoline is NOT a poll tax. On the other hand if you have to drive to the place for they is NO OTHER WAY TO GET TO THE VOTING BOTH, then that would be a Poll Tax (But remember, under the Common law, anything within 20 miles is viewed as within walking distance, thus counties tend be no longer than 20 miles across, eat to West or North to South with the County Seat in the middle, so people could walk to the county seat and back home within a day).

I bring up walking for it shows what can and can NOT be done. Blocking a way for people to get to the polls is a Poll Tax, but mere distance by itself is NOT. The same with ID, the mere demand for ID is probably constitutional, but if any fees is involved in getting that ID, those fees are unconstitutional (Or more actuality IDs that are issued free AND the State picks up the costs for getting any documentation are Constitutional, but if any fee is involved, the ID requirements is Unconstitutional).

[LeftyMom]

7. heh "thus counties tend be no longer than 20 miles across"

I read this, and thought, "he must be from back east." :rofl: Out here most of ours are much bigger than that, the next county over runs the width of the whole western slope of the Sierra Nevada, and the desert counties are enormous, if largely empty. Even without terrain issues, most of them couldn't be walked in a day, many take hours to drive across.

Doesn't really have much to do with the poll debate, but I just thought I'd point out the regional difference.

[happyslug]

10. San Bernardino is noted for being the largest county in the country.

California Counties between Sacramento and San Francisco are much smaller than the Counties to the South and North:


http://www.csac.counties.org/?id=6

For more maps of Counties:
http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=Find_a_County&Template=/cffiles/counties/usamap.cfm

But in most states counties tend to be no wider then 20 miles. The further west you go the larger the counties, but this only starts once you hit the arid parts of the country.


http://geography.about.com/library/misc/ncounties.htm

As you can see Pennsylvania, New York and New England have larger countries then Ohio and further west till you start to come into the arid parts of the US, when counties become quite large. Pennsylvania Counties were designed under the 20 mile rule, as were most states counties.

[Uncle Joe]

9. How many people have they found to commit vote fraud in the entire nation, 24? n/t

[droidamus2]

13. That's the real point

Uncle Joe you hit it on the head. The real question is not whether requiring ID is good or bad but rather is it necessary. Any group or state should have to strongly demonstrate a need for 'anti-fraud' measures before interfering with a persons right to vote. They should be required to demonstrate that there is wide spread voting fraud of the type addressed by the change. In other words if they are requiring an ID then they must show that a large number of people have been caught voting under another person's ID. If a person has somehow managed to register illegally having an ID at the voting booth will not solve that problem. I doubt this type of fraud really happens much. If you have to show ID to register or vote how about people that register or vote by mail. Do they get special treatment and not have to show id? To interfere with peoples right to vote under the Constitution is wrong unless it is a clearly delineated problem. Interfering to stop some perceived or made up future problem ie. People could commit fraud this way so we are going to preemptively institute voter restrictions is unacceptable.

[underpants]

14. 34

from memory it was something like 34 (since 1990) of which 22 were convicted.

From memory

[panzerfaust]

16. Expect the investment in the judiciary will pay off again

[robcon]

17. I think asking for ID is not too much to ask

for voting.

[droidamus2]

20. Too much?

Personally, at least while I lived in California, I always took with me the little postcard sized registration slip they gave me when I registered to the polls. I don't know that I was ever asked to show it but since it had my name and address on it and they always asked for that information to verify that I was at the right polling place I would just show it to them. No picture but a form of ID. It's not like IDs can't be faked. If somebody wants to commit fraud there is a lot of people out there that can show them how to do it. We should be doing everything we can to get more people to vote, legally of course, not putting road blocks in the way. Any extra requirement, especially if it costs money, for exercising your right to vote is an attempt to stop people from voting all together.
As I discussed in an earlier post show me that there is an actually need for this to stop actual demonstrated fraud then we can discuss giving people FREE picture ids otherwise I see it as an attempt to effect the voting patterns of particular segments of our society (take a guess who. Its not Republican voters).

[cosmicdot]

18. kick

too late to recommend

[OKthatsIT]

19. You think the High Court will decide in time???

They could hold off their decision, too. Timing is everything.