Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter Photo ID: CRAWFORD v. MARION COUNTY ELECTION BD.
The discussion of the Supreme Court's decision can be seen here:
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. . . .
Labels: VoteFraud
posted by John Lott at 12:10 PM
2 Comments:
"But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case."
The 2000 Supreme Court decision was 7-2.
I have sympathy for the poor and elderly. But the legitimacy of an election is of utmost importance.
I’ve always wondered why this is such a polarizing issue. The article also states, “The Indiana Democratic Party and other groups brought a broad-based challenge to the law, saying it infringed the right to vote under the 14th Amendment. They emphasized the difficulty of obtaining the required documentation, particularly for poor, elderly, disabled, and minority voters.” Perhaps this is true. I am not going to argue that point. But my theory is that if you can get to the polls, you can get to the DMV. Voting and renewing your license are both are once-every-four-year events.
Texas is also going to revisit this ruling. I would think that it’s more important in Texas than in Indiana since Texas borders Mexico. Democrats seem to be the ones who oppose the idea of voter ID with such fury. The only thing I am left to believe is that they don’t have the interest of the poor or elderly in mind. They have their own interests at heart. Therefore they need every vote they can muster…illegal or not.
In a discussion I had with one of my more liberal friends about this, he brought up the same old talking points. I even suggested that it’s not impossible to take the DMV to the poor. The state could set up stations in neighborhoods (much like they do for voting) and get those who would normally be “burdened” with getting a valid ID into the system. Furthermore, by taking the DMV to the people, the Democrats are more likely to get the votes of the people who would take advantage of that program.
There are tons of solutions for this issue. But voter ID is something that needs to be done. Those who oppose it just look bad. Especially when there are valid solutions to every argument presented as to why it’s a bad idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home