Marie Cocco: Justice Is Blind, But Can She Vote?

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



Justice Is Blind, But Can She Vote?

Posted on Jan 8, 2008
By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—The most revealing indicator of the state of our democracy is not to be found in the snowdrifts of New Hampshire but in the marbled chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court. Soon enough we will discover whether the court under Chief Justice John Roberts will become a partisan tool in the national Republican drive to place constraints on voting that are targeted at those who tend to support Democrats.

Not since the Supreme Court stopped the Florida presidential election recount in 2000 has a voting case been so significant, or so overflowing with partisan bile.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge to Indiana’s strict law requiring photo identification in order for a voter to cast a ballot at the polls. The state claims the law is necessary to stop voter fraud. Yet no one—not Indiana officials, not the U.S. Justice Department, which has taken the state’s side in the dispute, nor any commission—has come up with a single case in the state’s history in which an imposter showed up and cast a vote.

Never mind. In 2005, Republicans who controlled the Indiana Legislature and the governor’s mansion imposed the toughest photo identification requirement in the nation. Not coincidentally, studies have repeatedly shown that those least likely to possess photo identification—most commonly a driver’s license—are African-Americans, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. In short, they are more likely to vote Democratic. Challengers to the law have identified at least two Indiana voters who have infirmities that make it impossible for them to drive, according to The New York Times. They were prevented from casting ballots and having them counted after years of voting without difficulty.

Though the state set up a way for those without a license to obtain a photo ID, the process is complex, and eligible voters still can be denied. If, for example, a woman produces a birth certificate bearing her maiden name, rather than the married name under which she is registered to vote, she isn’t entitled to the identification. About 60 percent of those who have tried to get alternative IDs have been turned down, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Court. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080108_justice_is_blind_but_can_she_vote/

[ccinamon]

1. Keep your name = get to vote!

"If, for example, a woman produces a birth certificate bearing her maiden name, rather than the married name under which she is registered to vote, she isn’t entitled to the identification." Nobody changes their birth certificate when they get married...that's sooooo stupid.

Keep your name = get to vote! If all those against stricter Voter ID laws would use this as an example in their fight against stricter ID methods, make sure it gets lots of press, then it might be harder to pass....it would REALLY bother quite a bit of the Republicants - and maybe slow them down a bit -- or cause their heads to explode!!

This is another reason to KEEP YOUR NAME WHEN YOU GET MARRIED!!! I didn't change my name 30 years ago and I've had very few problems with society or the government.

I've often wondered if keeping my name some how gave me a little bit more confidence in my marriage, and the courage to give my two cents and be more of an "equal", and also maybe it gave my husband a little bit of pause to Listen to my two cents knowing that since I didn't "take" his name I wasn't "his" and I could leave anytime I felt that the marriage was no longer viable and there wasn't the name thing to "keep" me tied to him.

Tradition still can impact you emotionally and subconsciously and sometimes you don't even realize what it is that makes you think/behave the way you do.