Supreme Court: No, of course voter ID laws aren’t unconstitutional

posted at 3:45 pm on April 28, 2008 by Allahpundit

Republicans on one side, Democrats — forever vigilant about the integrity of the electoral process except when it’s inconvenient — on the other. The left claims that requiring ID amounts to a poll tax designed to discourage the poor from voting. Minor problem: ID is free in Indiana. Hence this very important question for the Court: Does having to wait in line for a few hours at the DMV violate the U.S. Constitution? From pages 14-15 of the opinion, John Paul Stevens betrays the Cause:

The burdens that are relevant to the issue before us are those imposed on persons who are eligible to vote but do not possess a current photo identification that complies with the requirements of SEA 483.16 The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver’s license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana’s BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.

They should have tried a “cruel and unusual punishment” argument instead. What about elderly voters who may not be able to find their birth certificates to obtain ID? Saith Stevens, that’s what provisional ballots are for. Do note that if you take the left seriously here, the act of voting itself arguably imposes an unconstitutional burden: As with a trip to the DMV, it requires leaving work, traveling, and waiting on line for an unknown amount of time. The only difference between the two is having to scrounge around for a copy of your birth certificate. That’s the “hardship” they’d have you believe warrants invalidating even the barest attempt to ensure that voters are who they say they are.

The other argument against the statute? Republicans support it. Really. Page 23:

In their briefs, petitioners stress the fact that all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor of SEA 483 and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it.21 In her opinion rejecting petitioners’ facial challenge, Judge Barker noted that the litigation was the result of a partisan dispute that had “spilled out of the state house into the courts.” 458 F. Supp. 2d, at 783. It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483 would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in Harper.

But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.”
Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788, n. 9.

Go read the boss for a refresher on who the plaintiff in this case is.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Did I just wake up in a parallel universe?

THE SUPREME’S did the right thing?

Cool

jake-the-goose on April 28, 2008 at 3:47 PM

But but.. what about the elderly, the poor, the illegals, the dead. Bwahhaaaahhhhhh!!!

dmann on April 28, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Not upholding this would have resulted in a chaotic nightmare.

I for one would have demanded the same rights when boarding aircraft.

Or when driving.

Which could be regarded as more important than voting?

drjohn on April 28, 2008 at 3:52 PM

Common-f’ing-sense. Let’s see who doesn’t have any: Ginsburg. Shocking. Dumba$$.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 28, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Thank You voices of reason!!!!!

zappa24 on April 28, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Great news except the left will figure out a way to produce fake ID’s and they will make a big stink at the polls to allow people to vote with questionable ID. Just watch.

They know they can’t win some close elections any other way. Hell…they tried to steal Florida in 2000 by determining a voter’s “intention” and counting that as a vote for Gore.

libhater on April 28, 2008 at 3:58 PM

thank god the massive voter fraud problem will be solved now.

Wait, but there isn’t a massive voter fraud problem. Why pray tell would Republicans support this then? hmmmmm

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 4:01 PM

This is a substantial win for the RIGHT, I’m very pleased with this decision and I’m not surprised by the ruling.

One good thing about a McCain victory in November might be that he would pick better judges for SCOTUS than the other two. That alone might make McCain worthy of support.

Maxx on April 28, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Darth Vader Ginsburg voted against it, eh? There’s a big shock.

Squiggy on April 28, 2008 at 4:01 PM

If ever the reason needed to be clear why we need to nail cranky old bastard on the type of nominee he’d present for the SCOTUS it is rulings like this. It disturbs me greatly that McCain has stated he wouldn’t nominate another Alito to the court. Guess he plans on giving Ginsberg some support to help him get through his radical left-wing agenda of amnesty, massive taxation, and oppressive government control of issues rightfully left to the individual.

As to the left’s views on this issue: Of course voting is a burden. We should just elect our public officials by demographics. The winner is decided by the ethnic make-up of the district. Blacks and poor Hispanics (read illegals) are Democrat votes. White urban and homosexual votes are also Democrat. Affuluent white suburban votes are Republican as are rural white votes. Hispanic votes (non illegal) are split on a fair share basis and Asian votes only count in the case of a tie. All that would be required is for voters to register (on line, of course) the demographic of their choice and let the formula choose their next leader! So much easier and cheaper than all this campaigning stuff.

highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 4:02 PM

Even before Indiana’s law was in place, opponents — including Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama — were lining up against it, apparently in fear that, if it stood, other states would follow. In 2005 Obama introduced a Senate resolution urging the Department of Justice to challenge any state law mandating photo IDs for voting.

That guy again. Well, strike this from his win column!

RushBaby on April 28, 2008 at 4:02 PM

…the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden…

It’s not like the poor don’t have the extra time on their hands.

loganthompson on April 28, 2008 at 4:03 PM

Common-f’ing-sense. Let’s see who doesn’t have any: Ginsburg. Shocking. Dumba$$.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 28, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Don’t forget David Souter and John Paul Stevens, they register zero on the common sense meter. But at least their consistent.

Maxx on April 28, 2008 at 4:07 PM

JPS wrote this opinion?

/faint

I…. <squeak>….

/faint

spmat on April 28, 2008 at 4:08 PM

Did anyone check the IDs of the dissenters? Perhaps someone stood in for them…

SPCOlympics on April 28, 2008 at 4:09 PM

But but.. what about the elderly, the poor, the illegals, the dead. Bwahhaaaahhhhhh!!!

dmann on April 28, 2008 at 3:50 PM

LOL … Very funny stuff !!

Maxx on April 28, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Oh my GOD they are gonna flip when they hear this, they being the DEMS.

Too much sense on display here folks, no way to bump up the vote with dead or no existent voters.

The argument that the poor, stupid and minorities will be left out is ridicules. You have to RIGHT to vote, how about taking responsibility and getting the proper paperwork so you can. You cant have EVERYTHING handed to you for christ sake.

TroubledMonkey on April 28, 2008 at 4:14 PM

There can be absolutely no argument against this ruling unless you are committed to either voter fraud or the total elimination of any personal responsibility.
For crying out loud, we’re not talking about any major inconvenience beyond a valid form of identification in order to vote. As people have pointed out, there are numerous other situations we all face every day that require ID…and for good reason. So therefore, voter fraud is the only argument against this ruling.

If you want to vote and can do so legally, SUCK IT UP AND GET ID! Otherwise TOUGH!

libhater on April 28, 2008 at 4:15 PM

But but.. what about the elderly, the poor, the illegals, the dead. Bwahhaaaahhhhhh!!!

dmann on April 28, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Don’t worry, the illegals will just get themselves some fake photo ID. It’s easy enough to obtain. Maybe the Democrats will even give them the two or three bucks it takes to buy one. ACORN probably already has a plan to do this — supported by your tax dollars, of course.

AZCoyote on April 28, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Actually, the fact that JPS wrote this smells like a Pyhrric tactic. Break 6-3 instead of 5-4 to soften the implications and provide back door precedents for future challenges.

spmat on April 28, 2008 at 4:19 PM

Given the myriad difficulties and inconveniences that undoubtedly confront any American WITHOUT a valid form of identification, you’d think all the lefties out there (who ordinarily love to impose burdens that they regard as being in our best interests) would embrace voter ID laws.

The left’s near-uniform opposition to these laws suggests that they’re aware of just how much voter fraud goes on, and desperately want it to continue.

Infidoll on April 28, 2008 at 4:20 PM

no way to bump up the vote with dead or non existent voters.

Unfortunately, that’s not true. There’s still a considerable amount of fraud in the voter registration process. Unqualified voters who have registered fraudulently can still avoid the photo ID requirement by casting their vote by mail.

AZCoyote on April 28, 2008 at 4:21 PM

The argument that the poor, stupid and minorities will be left out is ridicules. You have to RIGHT to vote, how about taking responsibility and getting the proper paperwork so you can. You cant have EVERYTHING handed to you for christ sake.

TroubledMonkey on April 28, 2008 at 4:14 PM

Exactly. Funny how those same people sure know how to get the paperwork in to receive money from the government.

libhater on April 28, 2008 at 4:21 PM

I go to college in Indiana. A few days ago there was an opinion piece in the school paper by some professor from NYU bitching about how Indiana’s voter ID law is like Jim Crow for the 21st century. It was…odd.

Jeff_McAwesome on April 28, 2008 at 4:21 PM

Wait, but there isn’t a massive voter fraud problem. Why pray tell would Republicans support this then? hmmmmm

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 4:01 PM

depends how you define massive. we do have 12-30million illegal aliens in this country. a large portion of these do tend to vote when they can get away with it. klind of why the lation voting group is growing at the rate it is.

Also while not massive, voting fraud in some districts and some states is well known. MN, MI, IL, Philly (in PA), are just some of the well profiled cases in the last several years. If states like NC and CA follow this verdict and inact meaningful ID voting laws. The entire fabric of those state governments could change.

unseen on April 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg dissented…no surprise there. If only these three idiot marxists were off the court, maybe there would be hope for us. I dream with those three being replaced with three who know how to comprehend what they read.

orlandocajun on April 28, 2008 at 4:22 PM

Seriously- how on Earth could you even function in modern society without a photo ID?

Cashing checks
Using a credit/debit card
Driving
Buying tobacco or alcohol
Renting a movie
Obtaining government services
etc, etc, etc

I suppose it’s possible for someone who didn’t drive, has their pay or government benefits directly deposited, and only uses cash to get by without one, but what percentage of adults don’t have some form of photo ID? .5%? .1%?

And the woman who brought the suit? Registered to vote in two states. Hilarious- way to undermine your case, honey.

Hollowpoint on April 28, 2008 at 4:23 PM

I always thought it silly to suggest it is a burden for people to wait in line for a government issued FREE ID card when the Democrat party is designed to make a zillion things availble to people for free to those who simply wait in line.

In other words, why is it not unconstitutional to make people wait in line to get their free Food Stamps, Welfare checks or WIC vouchers and yet it is unconstitutional to make them wait in line to get their FREE Identification card?

EJDolbow on April 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Justice Stevens is growing in office!

ScottG on April 28, 2008 at 4:27 PM

Jimmy Carter and his buddy Baker had a commission that thought voter ID was a good idea…so let’s throw them this bone and say, way to go Jimmy’s you are right, that is what we are going to do…now go away.

right2bright on April 28, 2008 at 4:28 PM

To borrow a line from Michelle Obama…..

For the first time in the 5 years I have lived here, I am proud of my adopted home of Indiana

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 28, 2008 at 4:28 PM

OK, I’m going to throw a little cold water on this. Not that I disagree, but I believe in total integrity in this process. This law only affects in-person voting, absentee ballots don’t have the same ID requirements. Absentee ballots have more potential for fraud. There has to be a way to ensure these ballots are secure, too. Fingerprints would do nicely, as well as the voter showing proof of citizenship when registering to vote. Motor voter “affidavits” don’t do it, incontrovertible proof must be shown – such as birth certificates or passports. 9 of 19 9/11 hijackers were registered to vote – without any check on their citizenship – now that’s a travesty. Think about how much potential fraud is out there from illegal aliens using the same weak protection (makes you think anew about the immigration debate, huh?). At least those guys were here on visas….

JeffWeimer on April 28, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Does having to wait in line for a few hours at the DMV violate the U.S. Constitution?

Hmm, using that same logic, wouldn’t the waits created by Obama’s and Hillary’s health care plans (if implemented) constitute a violation of Constitutional rights as well? It’s a given people will be waiting in some very long lines for all sorts of medical procedures. Also, unlike waiting a few hours at the DMV, waiting for medical procedures could be the difference between life and death.

Rick on April 28, 2008 at 4:34 PM

I’m an election judge supervisor in MN. I know fake ID’s …. I won’t let the scum vote. If you can’t get a simple I.D, you’re too darned stupid or too darn lazy to vote.

MNDavenotPC on April 28, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Carter said the reason he got so interested in voter fraud is because it was so common in Georgia, back when he was first trying to get into state politics. In some rural counties, election fixing was as common as boiled peanuts.

RBMN on April 28, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Carter said the reason he got so interested in voter fraud is because it was so common in Georgia, back when he was first trying to get into state politics. In some rural counties, election fixing was as common as boiled peanuts.

RBMN on April 28, 2008 at 4:35 PM

That may explain how he got elected.

Rick on April 28, 2008 at 4:38 PM

6-3 decision to uphold the voter ID law. Seems like Ginsburg forms her opinions along strictly partisan lines with suspicious reliability.

RightOFLeft on April 28, 2008 at 4:40 PM

The left claims that requiring ID amounts to a poll tax designed to discourage the poor from voting.

Do duh name Ruby Begonia ring a bell.

there it is on April 28, 2008 at 4:42 PM

The Dems will claim that a death certificate is valid voter ID.

Nosferightu on April 28, 2008 at 4:50 PM

Here in the great city of Jacksonville, there were complaints that polling places were too far away for people without cars, or that the locations had changed and no one was alerted.

I’m thinking…if voting is that important to you, plan ahead for a ride, or call up and find out where the polling place is. It’s not a surprise when the election is. You got time.

Some people are just so freakin helpless.

tlynch001 on April 28, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Who wants to claim that McCain would nominate Justices like Ginsburg and Stevens?

And not Roberts et al.?

No difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton?

If for no other reason than judical appointments, you have to vote for McCain.

[And it's going to be conservative judges that uphold actions against illegal immigrants like denying them school loans and other assistance]

SteveMG on April 28, 2008 at 4:59 PM

I’m an election judge supervisor in MN. I know fake ID’s …. I won’t let the scum vote. If you can’t get a simple I.D, you’re too darned stupid or too darn lazy to vote.

MNDavenotPC on April 28, 2008 at 4:35 PM

Then you be guilty, as the Democrats would say, of being a racist and vote suppressor disenfranchisement.

Dr.Cwac.Cwac on April 28, 2008 at 5:07 PM

That’s the “hardship” they’d have you believe warrants invalidating even the barest attempt to ensure that voters are who they say they are.

Being who they say they are is one thing…but being a U.S. citizen is another. That’s what the left doesn’t want anyone to have to prove.

The other argument against the statute? Republicans support it.

Mh…the media should ask McCain if he supports it?

thank god the massive voter fraud problem will be solved now.

Wait, but there isn’t a massive voter fraud problem. Why pray tell would Republicans support this then? hmmmmm

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 4:01 PM

You’re comical with your ironies. I’ll let you figure them out.

In 2005 Obama introduced a Senate resolution urging the Department of Justice to challenge any state law mandating photo IDs for voting.

Thanks RushBaby, for sharing this. I wonder why he wants this; also, did he notify our crr6 about this yet?

Entelechy on April 28, 2008 at 5:13 PM

Picture ID to buy a 40? no problem, to vote…wait a minute.

right2bright on April 28, 2008 at 5:16 PM

The latest and most extensive examination of electoral irregularities, released in November by the nonpartisan research institute Demos, determined that voter fraud was “very rare,” and every other respectable study has reached the same conclusion. This is certainly true in Indiana, where legislators said they were aiming to stop “voter impersonation,” which was already a crime in the state; in the entire history of Indiana, the number of prosecutions for this offense has been zero. Nationwide, despite an attempt by the Bush Justice Department to crack down on voter fraud, there were only a hundred and twenty federal prosecutions and eighty-six convictions between 2002 and 2006—a period in which close to four hundred million votes were cast. If there isn’t a problem, why fix it? Such laws will effectively disenfranchise thousands for the purpose of preventing maybe a few voter fraud cases.

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 5:27 PM

scrounge around for a copy of your birth certificate

Has Obama produced a copy of his birth certificate?

Red Pill on April 28, 2008 at 5:37 PM

crr6, isn’t it your side which cried “fraud” in 2000, 2004? You can’t have it both ways. IDs insure that those who vote are U.S. citizens, are legitimately resident and registered in a district, are of voting age, etc. I like it a lot and the inconvenience is insignificant. Only those who stand to lose from it mope about it.

Entelechy on April 28, 2008 at 5:39 PM

SteveMG on April 28, 2008 at 4:59 PM

I agree that with Obama or Clinton you’d get more Ginsbergs.

Unfortunately, with McCain we’re likely to get more Souters.

McCain led the Gang of Fourteen, intended to prevent the confirmation of judges who were deemed “too conservative” (i.e., who would overturn Roe v. Wade).

The only candidate who committed in writing to appoint more judges with proven track records in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia was…

Mike Huckabee

Red Pill on April 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM

crr6, IDs also insure that someone is a person, and one who’s alive.

Entelechy on April 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM

If I need an ID to drink an apple-tini, I should need an ID to choose the most powerful man in the free world.

Capitana on April 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Red Pill, Huckabee is as fake as Obama. You swallowed a big ‘pill’, and you’re under that influence.

Entelechy on April 28, 2008 at 5:43 PM

Has Obama produced a copy of his birth certificate?

Red Pill on April 28, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Fight this one. Make sure the media will. You never know what it might produce.

Entelechy on April 28, 2008 at 5:47 PM

crr6, and out of those convictions, how many were Democrats and how many from the GOP?

Lack of convictions does NOT mean there’s no problem; I spent too many years working as an election worker. The problem is isolated, alright; isolated in areas that suspiciously vote 90+% for one party. And it’s always the same party.

Armed guards are for the few that would rob the bank as well. Are you proposing they’re not needed?

Howver, all this will do is push more to absentee vote, so they can cast bulk ballots without the inconvenience of having people get fake IDs for all the precincts they need to vote in.

michaelo on April 28, 2008 at 5:52 PM

The whole country will go to vote by mail to skirt around the ruling.

thatcher on April 28, 2008 at 5:52 PM


crr6-

Why pray tell would the Republicans support this…?

hmmmmmmmmmmm?

In reverse, why would the Dems be against it?

Are they against photos on driver’s licenses? Photo ID’s for bank withdrawals?

Basic security is okay by them in every other realm, but is opposed in one area that has the simmering potential for election fraud.

So the question must be:

Why are Dems for making election fraud easier?Hmmmmmmmmm?????

profitsbeard on April 28, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Imagine what the voting results would be in Chicago? Probably about 1,000,000 less democratic votes than the previous election period.

GarandFan on April 28, 2008 at 6:23 PM

It disturbs me greatly that McCain has stated he wouldn’t nominate another Alito to the court.

He has repeatedly stated that he would nominate judges like Robert and Alito to the court.

He has a problem (as do I) with judges who wear their politics on their sleeve.

Squid Shark on April 28, 2008 at 6:24 PM

tlynch001 on April 28, 2008 at 4:56 PM

Lynch, you in Jax Florida?

Squid Shark on April 28, 2008 at 6:26 PM

McCain led the Gang of Fourteen, intended to prevent the confirmation of judges who were deemed “too conservative” (i.e., who would overturn Roe v. Wade).

The purpose was to end gridlock in the Senate without the stupid “nuclear” option which would have REALLY screwed us in the future. But you keep living in your fantasy world. McCain support Roe v Wade.

The only candidate who committed in writing to appoint more judges with proven track records in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia was…

Mike Huckabee

Red Pill on April 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM

Or John McCain who has repeatedly stated his committment to appointing more Roberts and Alito style judges.

Squid Shark on April 28, 2008 at 6:32 PM

If only my Illinois state legislators would pass this kind of law, the landscape of Chicago politics may change, thus allowing for more downstate rule. Who knows; we could then maybe even pass a concealed carry law!

Big John on April 28, 2008 at 6:41 PM

But if fraud and voting twice are not constitutional rights, how can we ever elect Democrats??

landlines on April 28, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Dr Cwac Cwac

I plead guilty! and proudly so. You’re right, of course, tis exactly what the ACORN and Soros malcontents would say.

MNDavenotPC on April 28, 2008 at 6:51 PM

After the primary here in San Antonio, TX, I picked up one of the local liberal papers and the entire issue was dedicated to the Democratic caucuses and all the problems they had. One of the biggest contentions was that everyone that showed up had to have a photo ID. Get that! The Democrats were turning away people who didn’t have a photo ID, they were’nt allowed to caucus!

xdwall on April 28, 2008 at 7:00 PM

michaelo on April 28, 2008 at 5:52 PM

yes but then there is a paper trail and it becomes mail fraud which can be persauded by the fbi et all. the punishment goes why up if your caught. and since absentee voting has been going on for some years now if all of a sudden you had a massive increase in one party’s results thru the mail then it would stand out.

unseen on April 28, 2008 at 7:05 PM

RedPill,

Do you think that either Roberts or Alito could/would have been confirmed without the Gang of Fourteen, given the makeup of the Senate at the time? If so, how?

nktr on April 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM

In reverse, why would the Dems be against it?

Are they against photos on driver’s licenses? Photo ID’s for bank withdrawals?

Basic security is okay by them in every other realm, but is opposed in one area that has the simmering potential for election fraud.

So the question must be:

Why are Dems for making election fraud easier?Hmmmmmmmmm?????

profitsbeard on April 28, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Dems are against it because it will suppress voter turnout amongst traditionally democractic-leaning constituencies, not because of voter fraud. As I posted earlier, voter fraud is scarce to non-existent. The only fraud in regarding this issue is the Republicans purported justification.

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 7:48 PM

I bet if they did fingerprints with no ID right at the voting booth, having your name on file for life, it would be opposed for some stupid reason. Perhaps Lenny Smith changes his name to Mohamed Ali next year and can’t prove it.

StuLongIsland on April 28, 2008 at 8:07 PM

He has a problem (as do I) with judges who wear their politics on their sleeve.

Squid Shark on April 28, 2008 at 6:24 PM

Shark,

We are not talking about “judges” we are talking about Supreme Court Justices that are supposed to rule on whether or not judges correctly applied the nation’s laws. What matters here is if the SCOTUS applies the laws or legislates from the bench. Alito and Roberts have not Ginsberg and Souter have. McCain will not, repeat NOT, nominate the people that should be nominated because he is a cranky old liberal bastard who, if elected, will be as treasonous as Jimmy Carter in the years left to him after being in office.

highhopes on April 28, 2008 at 8:52 PM

McCain will not, repeat NOT, nominate the people that should be nominated because he is a cranky old liberal bastard who, if elected, will be as treasonous as Jimmy Carter in the years left to him after being in office.

And you evidence that he will nominate liberal judges is….oh yeah, you dont have any.

I am glad you think that a man who has given more to this country than most of us pouges will be treasonous. I would like to say you disgust me but you, Valiant and the rest of your crowd have reached the point of hyperbole so ridiculous it is satire.

BTW, thanks for the condecending 8th grade civics lesson, I am well aware of the Supreme Court’s role in our society (hence the Shark in Squid Shark).

Squid Shark on April 28, 2008 at 9:11 PM

I hope this puts an end to the dead voting Liberal,
voter fraud and all!

canopfor on April 29, 2008 at 1:09 AM

Norway requires voter ID for elections. I’d love to see the Democrats argue that the socialist Norwegian government is violating the rights of its citizens.

That it costs money to get an ID is the most BS argument – ever. Why? Well shite, just pass a law mandating free ones for people who have a hard time paying. It’s not that hard if you’re actually creative about ensuring that elections are fair – something the Democrats aren’t.

Seixon on April 29, 2008 at 3:38 AM

In some rural counties, election fixing was as common as boiled peanuts.

RBMN on April 28

Which is how “Landslide Lyndon” Johnson got into politics in Texas.

oldleprechaun on April 29, 2008 at 6:58 AM

Dems are against it because it will suppress voter turnout amongst traditionally democractic-leaning constituencies, not because of voter fraud.

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 7:48 PM

I have news for you: Illegal aliens and dead people aren’t allowed to vote, and living American citizens aren’t allowed to vote twice.

I’m all for suppressing those constituencies. Of course, the Dems can’t win without them, so I feel your pain.

amkun on April 29, 2008 at 7:05 AM

Richard Daley’s father is now officially spinning in his grave at ultracentrifuge rotation speeds. An epidemic of the vapors has allegedly struck New Joisey and Palm Beach County. The South Dakota Indian reservations voting system faces heap big trouble.

I’m not convinced that truly was Buzzy Ginsburg casting her vote or napping as usual through testimony. So lets have the court reporter simply blank out her vote or append an asterisk in the ruling summary until ole Ruthie dear can fork over some picture ID proving that the ACLU didn’t send over some hack impersonator in a wig and her robe. C’mon bailiff, make Buzzy prove that’s really her and not Marie Antoinette (“Why, then let them vote fake!”) hiding behind the bench.

Not surprised by Souter or Breyer. Both could better serve a purpose for calibrating EEG monitors for zero level.

viking01 on April 29, 2008 at 7:34 AM

Some people are just so freakin helpless.

tlynch001 on April 28, 2008 at 4:56 PM

A more apt description would be – hopeless.

OldEnglish on April 29, 2008 at 8:57 AM

This law doesn’t cover absentee ballots, which is where the REAL fraud occurs. There have been prosecutions here of (Democrat, of course) party officials that used vacant houses to receive ballots, filled in ballots for nursing home residents, etc. The percentage of ballots cast via absentee ballots is very high here. They are verified by comparing signatures on ballots and voter registration rolls.

Still, it’s good that this law was upheld. It should cut down on in-person voter fraud.

darwin-t on April 29, 2008 at 9:12 AM

As an alumnus and former chapter president of the Federalist Society, I quiver at the notion of a Democrat nominating judges next time (probably Stevens’s or Ginsburg’s retirement). For all his faults, George W. Bush has been stellar in his SCOTUS nominations, and we should not forget (and be thankful for) that we have a conservative majority for the first time in a long while.

That being said, this law is just, fair, and necessary. I don’t need to write a brief to explain this to my fellow HA readers.

FLcapitalistthug on April 29, 2008 at 9:25 AM

…there were only a hundred and twenty federal prosecutions and eighty-six convictions between 2002 and 2006—a period in which close to four hundred million votes were cast. If there isn’t a problem, why fix it? Such laws will effectively disenfranchise thousands for the purpose of preventing maybe a few voter fraud cases.
crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 5:27 PM

As I posted earlier, voter fraud is scarce to non-existent. The only fraud in regarding this issue is the Republicans purported justification.
crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 7:48 PM

You are using poor logic. Number of convictions does not indicate the number of fraudulent votes. Convictions depend on the vigor and motives of the prosecution as much as anything. If the prosecutors are happy with election results how motivated are they to find any evidence of fraud?

You must agree that there are many times more robberies, rapes, murders, etc., than there are convictions.

I rest my case.

Sloan Morganstern on April 29, 2008 at 9:34 AM

Do you think that either Roberts or Alito could/would have been confirmed without the Gang of Fourteen, given the makeup of the Senate at the time? If so, how?

nktr on April 28, 2008 at 7:20 PM

Well, the republicans were ready to drop the “nuclear option” IIRC, which would have put an end to ALL of the “fillibustering” of not only Roberts and Alito but of ALL federal judges.

McCain is so anxious to work with democrats and so willing to dump on republicans I don’t have much confidence in his possible picks to the Supreme Court.

darwin-t on April 29, 2008 at 9:34 AM

as long as you’re not directly paying to vote…I think demanding some form of ID is totally acceptable. A “voter” ID would have to be provided free of charge if the voter had no other form of ID. Somehow proof of identity would have to be established and an ID card issued. Not to everyone, just to those without another form of valid ID.

beefytee on April 29, 2008 at 9:51 AM

Indiana state officials should now challenge the Democrats to come forward after this election with identified people who were unable to get an ID and thus unable to vote. If they can find more than a half-dozen actual, legal, competent people I will be shocked.

rockmom on April 29, 2008 at 10:41 AM

I’ve always had to show my ID when I vote in Colorado. I wonder what would happen if I didn’t have it? Sorry, I am ignorant on what the state law is, I’m just reporting. I even had to show my ID to “vote” at the Republican Caucus.

kirkill on April 29, 2008 at 11:38 AM

crr6

I can’t stand it any more! The lack of voter fraud convictions (data) is NOT based on no voter fraud. It is based on lack of prosecutions. Lack of voter fraud is not remotely indicated by lack of prosecutions or convictions. STOP stating that as a fact, like any other brainwashed cosmo/socialist/liberal. Voter fraud is one of those crimes that is political in nature, widespread where one party predominates in an area, and generally carries a penalty much less than the effort to prosecute. Also, don’t think politically elected prosecutors have any impetus to try low penalty political crime. If it ain’t filed or prosecuted, there are few convictions. Hence, your idiotic statement of fact.

I have lived in the chicago and Lake County Indiana area in a previous life. I now live in Oklahoma. There is voter fraud, more in the Chicago and Lake County than OK. I know it when I see it.

Has anybody considered the old pinkie in the inkwell trick. The little sticker that says “I have voted” comes off so easily, but it does verify to your boss that you really did vote if you took time off.

Old Country Boy on April 29, 2008 at 12:52 PM

I support it as long as the state provides free voter ID.

jdun on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM

The real problem Democrats have with voter id is that it makes it more difficult to cheat. That’s where the real hardship comes in.

katieanne on April 29, 2008 at 2:16 PM

As the founding fathers roll in their graves…

bridgetown on April 29, 2008 at 2:42 PM

thank god the massive voter fraud problem will be solved now.

Wait, but there isn’t a massive voter fraud problem. Why pray tell would Republicans support this then? hmmmmm

crr6 on April 28, 2008 at 4:01 PM

Well, it’s hardly massive voter fraud. Just enough to throw a few elections here and there. Which just happens to occur in Democratic strongholds such as certain parts of St. Louis, Chicago, New Orleans, New York City, and, ummmm, Indian reservations. Which might, of course, have a little to do with the fact that Democrats fight measures against voter fraud tooth and nail.

So sometimes we get a senator who wasn’t really elected elected. Nothing to worry about.

Do I really need to add /sarc?

tom on April 29, 2008 at 2:59 PM

I support it as long as the state provides free voter ID.

jdun on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM

Indiana DOES supply a free photo ID to people that can’t afford them.

Here you go – straight from Indiana’s web site:
Identification Card – 6 Year 13.00
Identification Card For Voting Purposes – 6 Year FREE
Duplicate or Amended Identification Card 13.00
Special Identification Card – 6 Year
(Ages 65 and over or Disabled) 10.00
Duplicate Special Identification Card – 6 Year
(Ages 65 and over or Disabled) 10.00
Amended Special Identification Card – 6 Year
(Ages 65 and over or Disabled) 10.00

Period dot bingo

darwin-t on April 29, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Geez,

What is it with Americans?

Here in Canada you can’t vote unless you produce valid ID.

Why is that so hard to understand?

The preceeding was directed at the left in the US of A.

MT

Mistahtibbs on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 PM

Breakfast at McDonald’s $3.00
Voter ID $10.00
Less Democrat voter fraud on election day… PRICELESS

Mojave Mark on April 30, 2008 at 12:22 AM

Duh!

Johan Klaus on April 30, 2008 at 1:04 AM

I am glad you think that a man who has given more to this country than most of us pouges will be treasonous. I would like to say you disgust me but you, Valiant and the rest of your crowd have reached the point of hyperbole so ridiculous it is satire.

Squid Shark

“Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech”.

So you trust the judgement, and Constitutional scolarship of a man who reads this, then believes that his job, in Congress, as Senator, is to abridge freedom of speech (but only on political matters, and near an election).

Because that’s OK…

Right. So lets trust him. Because his track record couldn’t be better. Sure he willfully violated his oath of office to defend and uphold the Constitution; and he crafted a law that violates the clear text of the First Amendment.

But who cares. Surely he’ll nominate judges who want the real text of the Constitution to apply. So the first thing they’d do if they honestly had that position would be to strike down McCain-Feingold…

Yeah, McCain strikes me as the kind of man who would pick SCOTUS members who will strike down what he considers his “best” legislation. Not at all worried about trying to protect it, I’m sure he’ll sacrifice it for Constitutional integrity.

You know, or maybe not. Maybe he’ll protect it and need Justices who don’t read the real text of the Constitution, but who will “reinterpret” it in order to preserve McCain-Feingold and McCain’s “legacy” from Congress…

Hard to say. Now in 2002 when he passed it, he thought it was more important than his oath. In 2005 when he sued the FEC to try to force them to regulate internet communications as well, he thought it was more important than the Constitution. In 2007 when he submitted an Amicus brief he was clearly trying to state that certain people and organizations should not have the right to speak near an election on political matters.

So, will he appoint Justices that defend the real Constitution, or the fake one that has revisions and retractions that only he knows and he has been working from for over 6 years?

gekkobear on April 30, 2008 at 12:54 PM