GraceAbounds

Supreme Court upholds
voter ID law
Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process

The Associated Press
updated 9:50 a.m. CT, Mon., April. 28, 2008



WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

'Extremely disappointed'
More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.
The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.
Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

Burden 'eminently reasonable'
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.
But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."
Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"
Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.
Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.
Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: Supreme Court upholds voter ID law - Politics - MSNBC.com

__________________

RecklessTim

I always love the timing of such moves...

Why can't they pass such laws then give the voters time to get proper identification if they need one. I agree that some form of identification should be used, but don't do this shit just before primaries or elections...

I guess this will all be a moot point once we are all required to get the "mark of the beast"
Everyone will then have their identification on the back of their hand and forehead.

__________________
Mr President;
It has been reported that you are here to "lecture" us on democracy and human rights. But with a record like yours, you will not be very convincing.

Peter Parka

Seems pretty harsh to me, I can understand some form of I.D. but photo I.D. seems over the top and a hinderance to me. Dont know how it works in the US. Here eligable voters get their polling card through the post which you take to the station and hand in in exchange for a voting slip, got mine in front of me actually as its local elections on Thursday. No I.D. is required and I cant say I've heard of major fraud because of this

__________________

GraceAbounds

All of our Driver's licenses have a photo I.D. over here; so do our school I.D.'s, etc.

I do not know ANYONE that does not have a form of ID with a picture on it. You pretty much have to have a photo ID to do anything over here that involves money or the law (rent a car, drive, school, cash a check, open a bank account, etc.)

__________________

Peter Parka

Well a lot of people don't have driving licenses as well as a lot of people dont have passports. These are the main photo I.D. that people have here and either one costs a fortune to get. More than a lot of OAPs can afford ect. I don't see it's fair taking away some peoples right to vote because they cant afford I.D.

__________________

GraceAbounds

ID's are not expensive in the US.

I can understand your point of view from where you live, but that just isn't the case here.

__________________

Silious950

This is just the next step to a Federal ID Law. If that happens I'm denying it and moving to another country.

__________________
" As sure as sex sells, I excel, I set sails, take the less traveled trail, Dustin never fails see, I'm all about individualism, I pitch tents along tracks, cuz I live in the rhythm."

FreeWorkVest

My concern is that ID laws can be used to prevent people from voting. Want a copy of your birth certificate - fine $700 please

Peter Parka

You don't automatically get a birth certificate when you are born? I don't know how much it costs to get a birth registered here but it's done at birth so I cant see how you would need to get a copy when you get to voting age.

__________________

Pudding Time

$700??

Juli has had hers sent to her a couple of times and It's only cost about $30 each time..

Pudding Time

You can lose a birth certificate..

Peter Parka

Well in that case, I dont see that paying for a replacement is out of order. You dont want to pay for a replacement, look after it and dont loose it, simple!

__________________

Meirionnydd

$700?... Are you serious?

Thats uh.... quite expensive, only costs around $20 down in Aus I'm pretty sure.

__________________
Toasting potentially epic bread

FreeWorkVest

What I am saying is, what is to stop politicians from making things too expensive for people to get a photo ID, such as unreasonably high charges for copies of the birth certificate. They could say they are doing it to prevent terrorists from using them to make fake id's. If you have a photo ID, it will only be 20 dollars, etc.