Picture ID To Vote? Supreme Court Says It’s Constitutional
28 04 2008The Supreme Court ruled that Indiana’s law requring people to show a photo ID before voting was Constitutional. As you would expect in anything having to do with voting today, one side of the measure (mostly Democrats) said it was an attempt to “disenfranchise” poor and minority voters who usually vote Democratic. Republicans said that it was a necessary step to protect from voter fraud.
The 6-3 decision was surprising to me in that I expected a 5-4 vote on idealogical lines. Instead, the majority opinion was written by John Paul Stevens who is often considered in the liberal side of the Court. According to an article from bloomberg.com:
“Writing the court’s lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said voter fraud is “real” and “could affect the outcome of a close election.” States, he said, have a “valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.””
I agree 100% with Justice Stevens. The integrity and reliability of the electoral process is a very valid and very real concern. Reasonable steps to make sure voters are legally registered to vote is something that should be supported by people of all political parties and ideaologies. If you screamed about the 2000 election or about St. Louis keeping polling places in predominantly Democratic districts open longer then you should be stepping up to say that something as simple as showing a photo ID to prove identity before voting is a small step to preserve integrity of the process.
Look, if you have to show a photo ID to use a check or in many cases a credit card then it’s not unreasonable to ask for the same kind of ID when it’s something much more important like voting for our city, state and national leaders. It will be interesting to see what happens in Missouri now that the Supreme Court has ruled in this manner. (If you don’t know, the our state’s high court voted down the Voter ID law in Missouri.)
Let’s get a law in place and allow enough time for people to be informed through the media and other avenues like direct mail that voting in the future will require a photo ID. Provide information on how to get one if you don’t have a driver’s license or other previously issued form of state photo ID. This is a reasonable, common-sense measure to help fight voter fraud that is not an unreasonable burden on anyone.
I’m still trying to figure out HOW it disenfranchises the poor and minorities. You can’t do anything without a picture ID so it only stands to reason that in order to cast a ballot in any election one should be required.
A state ID card isn’t that difficult to get and it doesn’t have to be a drivers license.
Since we don’t have a constitutional right to vote then I’m trying to figure out how this got to the Supreme Court?
Has to do with federal election laws and standarization. (Think interstate commerce)
Sorta like Gore v Bush where one state was trying to change standards after the fact - in relation to other states (on a federal election).
The argument is that people are disenfranchised, and it is valid. SOME are. Not most, though.
Yes, it does cost money to get an ID. This is not an issue for most, but it is for some. So, we do disenfranchise a small amount of our poor who wish to vote.
Also, there is the matter of having to have a permanent address. There is (in case anyone has forgotten) still a homeless population in the U.S., and since homeless U.S. citizens are entitled to voting rights, the fact that a permanent address is required to obtain an official ID does disenfranchise these people. But, I have no idea how to remedy this issue.
I appreciate any thoughts or alternative angles.
_||/\/\
Personally, if they male photo ID manditory meaning state ID then those folks should automatically be registered to vote by mere possession of said I.D. This country goes out of its way to make it difficult for worker class people to vote.
Voting should be moved to Sundays like in most other countries this would increase the amount of people voting.
James, you don’t have to think of a “remedy” as there is no voter fraud problem. This wave of legislation has been passed by the party that will benefit from its passage, and for purely political purposes.
The documented problems have been the purging of voter rolls to include people with the same/similar names to the felons. Which happened a lot in 2004.
Well, a Sunday vote is unlikely. Remember, voting occurs in November, and America loves its beer and football.
_||/\/\