Supreme Court upholds voter identification laws.
By on Apr 28th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Supreme Court upholds voter identification laws.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that “states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.” The case concerned Indiana’s voter ID law, the most restrictive in the nation, and comes just one week before the state’s presidential primary. More than 20 states currently require some form of ID at the polls. More on how these voter ID laws disenfranchise Americans here.
UpdateFull decision here.
UpdateIn their concurring opinion, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito argued that burdens on voters caused by the voter ID law are "minimal and justified":
[B]ut for the sake of clarity and finality (as well as adherence to precedent), I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners’ premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.Adam B notes that Justice Stevens acknowledged, "The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history."
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
58 Responses to “Supreme Court upholds voter identification laws.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Graham
Guantanamo
Hannity
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Liz Cheney
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
We are who we are. Requiring ID for any purpose is not a crime any more than requiring calendars to containing the name of a day of the week. If one is not guilty of attempting to vote fraudently then where is the problem? If you don't want to be ID'ed then don't do the crime.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:50 amRepublic party hacks in black robes once again put party above country.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:50 amOnce again the re-pukes are pulling out all stops even in a primary to win the White House.
April 28th, 2008 at 10:53 am...just in time for the Indiana primary'!
How convenient. Blacks and other minorities that don't have a photo ID will not be able to vote? Even if they do, they may find a lack of voting machines. This is another example of 'American Royalty' preventing the people from voting.
How much is enough, America?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:02 amNot everyone can afford to get a government-issued ID. This directly goes against the poor who may not have the money to purchase an ID if they don't have a drivers license. Unless the government is going to give those who can not afford the proper ID, which I highly doubt (health care anyone?), I don't see how this if fair.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:02 amAnd the screws keep turning on Soviet America
April 28th, 2008 at 11:04 amclarkorwell Says
April 28th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Not everyone can afford to get a government-issued ID.
__________________________________________________
And if people have to pay for a government-issued ID for no purpose except voting eligibility, this is basically a poll tax. Which is illegal. The Supremes are clueless (or just beholden to GOP interests) if they are assuming that everybody has a government-issued photo ID already.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:10 amGreat timing SCROTUS!
April 28th, 2008 at 11:11 amEven if the government issued voter-ID cards to every eligible voter for free, what about people who don't have the ID necessary to get one of these cards? What about the elderly woman who has no birth certificate because she was born in a farmhouse 75 years ago?
The Republicans seem to thing that a "small number" of people can be disenfranchised to prevent a problem (voter fraud) that doesn't exist -- but only because these disenfranchised people are mostly Democrats. If they were Republicans, they'd be fighting tooth and nail against this travesty.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:14 amJustice Antonin Scalia, "So?"
There has been no substantial proof of voter fraud that demanding IDs will solve. Scalia has even admitted as much and instead of refusing to here the case as he does when an issue actually bears importance, he jumps on THIS one hoping once again to disenfranchise votes for Democrats.
Hey Scalia, why don't you go Cheney yourself! This torture approving, pissing his pants in fear ala "24" goodfella whannabe deserves the deepest scorn of every true American. A pathetic excuse for a judge and the perfect Bush lackie. He'll rot in Hell with the rest of these pathetic excuses for profesionals in this criminal Administration.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:14 amSix justices should retire as soon as Obama takes office.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:18 amFunny... the folks who have been repeatedly proven to engage in election fraud have been GOOPers, time and time again.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:19 amVoice_of_Reason Says:
It should be 50.
Your IQ has nothing to do with this.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:20 amOn NPR this morning, they asked Scalia about rumors that McSame might pick him as the VP candidate for the republic party. Scalia said "no, I'm actually not much of a politician...". That one made me spit my coffee all over my dashboard...
Scalia's the most dangerous kind of politician -- the kind we can't vote out of office. And if McSame wins this fall, be ready for SCOTUS to be 9-0 for the republic party by the end of his four years, after Ginsburg and Stevens leave sometime during that term and Breyer gets pressured to join the Dark Side by the rest of the republics on the court...
April 28th, 2008 at 11:22 amNow that the repubs have eliminated free voting, it will be interesting to see how they attack mail in balloting.
If the Dem's can't use this decision to show why a Repub should not be in the WH, they will be faililng all Americans. The supremes are now forming the law around issues to keep the rich in power in America and are shameless about it.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:23 amTHIS is the best reason to vote Democratic in November. We just can't allow the highest court in the land to become even more reactionary. It would put our nation behind fifty years, minimum...
April 28th, 2008 at 11:24 am"Papers, please ..."
... another small chilling step. Is this the America you want?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:29 amHoly literacy test, Batman! The next step is to make it more difficult and expensive to keep the poor, the lame, and aged out of the voting booth! Shame on Indiana, shame on the Appeals Court, and shame on the Supreme Court!
April 28th, 2008 at 11:35 amApril 28th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Hmmm... weren't the GOOPers the one whining about judges legislating from the bench?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:38 amI am not required to show my ID. But I do because I should have too. Voting is not a right, it's a privilege. You will not find any right to vote listed in the Constitution.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:38 amYou will also not find the 14th Amendment in the Constitution. It's an amendment.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:43 amVoice_of_Reason Says:
Please point it out.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:44 amwho was the sixth vote?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:51 amStevens?
we are so fokked...
Scalia's a fan of Jack Bauer.
Stevens has gone senescent.
The goddam Inquisition controls jurisprudence in the USofA...
Chuy!
misshusseinmolly Says:
"What about the elderly woman who has no birth certificate because she was born in a farmhouse 75 years ago?"
That is the most sexist and age discriminating post ever on TP!
Just because she is elderly and a woman is no reason for dening her a birth certificate or the right to vote. I was born in a farm house 75 years ago and I have a birth certificate, photo ID, and I vote. But then I am a man and not elderly.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:54 amScalia, echoed by somebody above, has said there is no "right" to vote.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:54 amI hope there's a streetlamp stout enough to bear his weight...
COB! Is that you, Jake?
April 28th, 2008 at 11:57 amYou people are just flapping in the breeze without seeing the problem at all. The question is: should provisions be made to prevent ILLEGAL Republican actions at the polls. The answer is: absolutely. The question you are trying to ignore or transpose as the same question is: should the Republicans be banned from preventing LEGAL Democrats from voting. Again the answer is: absolutely. Requiring photo ID at the polls is the answer to both of the non-related questions. Better to have a few of either or both parties not voting than have hundreds of thousands of legal Democratic votes not counted because of Republican malfeance.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pmRUCerious
No!
April 28th, 2008 at 12:02 pmCOB
75 years is not elderly?
LOL!
at 75, you think you're a spring chicken?
most likely, just plain chicken!
April 28th, 2008 at 12:04 pmUncle Ho,
It is not the age of the person that determines whether or not the person is elderly. It is how that person ages that counts. If I were just plain chicken as you say I would not be here with you snakes, foxes, and Kentucky Colonels. I'll take you on in a Geritol drinking contest any day.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:10 pmCOB; the LAST thing I need is Geritol
BTW- do they even MAKE that stuff anymore?
April 28th, 2008 at 12:11 pmCOB- answer RU's question, 'is that you jake?'
inquiring minds would like to know
April 28th, 2008 at 12:13 pmScalia, 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.'"
This is side five.
Follow in your book and repeat after me as we learn three new words in Turkish.
"towel"...
"bath"...
"border"...
May I see your passport please?
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 12:52 pmAnd then there's the hated "pass laws" of the ol' U.S.A (the Union of South Africa).
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 12:54 pmUncle Ho,
See 36. However, I must qualify my answer. If you have reference to "Jake" the "troll" who poluted these parts at one time, the answer is correct. If your reference is to the "jake" in my "A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English", Eric Partridge, The McMillan Company, New York, 1961: jake, adj, honest, upright, equitble, correct,'O.K.', or excellent, then I plead guilty on all counts.
I don't know about Geritol either. It probably has some new name like "Red Balls" or "Garterade."
April 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pmThis is a significant paradigm shift in the function of the supreme court and the process of finding a law constitutional or unconstitutional, is it not? While right-wingers can theorize all day long about imagined malfeasance, didn't higher courts used to turn down cases where no harm to a plaintiff can actually be shown? Someone kindly explain how finding in favor of a complainant with no actual complaint is different than legislating from the bench.
By the way, as is the case with all right-wing games, the voting burden is only part one. The ultimate goal is to make a play for removing congressional representation as outlined in the 14 amendment (itself amended by 15, 19 and 26).
VA Voter, you need to get your computer checked. It's saying stupid things.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:59 pmWell, then, it seems it's time to do away with mail-in voting then. Unless of course you want to sign your name via your fingerprint or DNA (i.e. blood). How else can anyone know who is mailing in those ballots.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:00 pm#11: A Patriot Acting:
Justice Antonin Scalia, “So?”
There has been no substantial proof of voter fraud that demanding IDs will solve. Scalia has even admitted as much and instead of refusing to here the case as he does when an issue actually bears importance, he jumps on THIS one hoping once again to disenfranchise votes for Democrats.
Strangely enough, there was no evidence of "vote dilution" in the execrable Dubya v. Gore decision either (mainly for the simple reason that the recounts in question hadn't even happened at the time of the decision), even though they "found" an "equal protection" violation. But if you happen to be a black and are making an "equal protection" claim, you need to show proof of actual invidious intent, as well as specific proof of discrimination (and statistical evidence simply won't do....).
Cheers,
April 28th, 2008 at 1:00 pmSupreme Court Justices may be Impeached, Tried, Convicted and Removed from Office.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pmI am really not sure why this is problematic - I mean who doesn't have an ID these days - other than illegal immigrants of course. Frankly, if you don't have an ID you probably don't have the right to vote in the first place. Showing an ID is indeed a minimal burden to anyone - you must have to get in the car to go vote; where's the burden in pulling it out of your pocket when you get there? C'mon now...
April 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pmAs a p.s. to my above post - I do admit that requiring an ID won't solve some, if not many of the voter fraud issues - but it is a start and if state legislatures see fit to target that as a start - who is the SCOTUS to reverse that given that the burden in showing an ID is so minimal.
I notice one post above says this is a crackdown on black voters and minority voters. How in the blue hell so? It's a crackdown on people who can't whip out a drivers license or any form of photo ID regardless of race or minority. Move on from the racial issue; that was so 1863....
April 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pmYOU VIL HAND OVER YOUR PAPERS!!! RAUSCH!!!
April 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pmThe Supreme court is simply another abused power of the right wing.
This isn't activist judges, this is ramming right wing radical ideology down the throats of everyone in the country.
'Justice' be dammed.
April 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pm49 - One thing you forget, drinkie - the polling places are, by law, ALL within WALKING distance of every voter's residence.
You know, for people who don't have cars....?
April 28th, 2008 at 1:56 pm.
So,
~ Who do I present my ID to when I fill out my absentee ballot?
~ Are poll workers trained on spotting fake ID's?
~ What about out of State ID's?
.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pmVoter fraud is not the problem in this country. Election fraud is the problem. People provided some type of identification when they registered to vote and in many cases that could have been 50 years ago. And these people have been voting in that district ever since with no problem. Since polling place notifications go to the house the person would still have to live there to know where to go. People born in houses in cites and rural areas many times did not have birth certificates and at times would have to bring their parents with them to vouch for where they were born and where they live.
Unless you are registered and you show up at the correct polling place you can't vote. What are the chances that somebody is going to steal a name and know where to go vote?
Perhaps the entire country needs to vote absentee ballots and at least there will be a paper trail and we'll all be giving the finger to the SCOTUS.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:03 pmOh quit it! Get a car and drive how many miles with gas you can't afford to the 'nearest' photo ID place. Hmm...who said these photos were free? And since you're poor and black, let's just make you even pay a little bit MORE for inconveniencing me with your stupid request for a photo ID so you can vote! You don't even know the issues, so why should I help you?
April 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pmL. Hussein Annie Says:
"One thing you forget, drinkie - the polling places are, by law, ALL within WALKING distance of every voter’s residence."
Ms. Annie,
Please provide your reference or define "walking distance."
Just how far would you be willing to walk to vote? My mail box is 1/2 mile from my house. I would have to have a pack mule to carry the groceries to walk to my polling place and back. By the time I got home it would be time to start for the next election.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:07 pmI think Crusty needs to petition for a new polling place!
April 28th, 2008 at 2:08 pmHow about this for a compromise. You have to register to vote. Make the voter registration card a picture ID. Voter registration is free. I’m sorry if it’s a hassle for some folks but the DMV (like all government offices) are a hassle.
April 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pmHey, not to worry, it's not like the Federal Elections Committee will provide any oversight this go-around.
All this worry over some poor folks standing in more than one line for several hours at a time, just to be able to vote more than once...when all you really have to do is be the Republican owner of the corporation who makes electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail with which to verify their accuracy. That way, the Party in Power stays in power. And with control over the media, they can ensure that the "polls" will always be close...too close to call.
Might as well get used to the sound of President McCain, hand-picked successor to Bush the Lesser.
Oh, and impeachment will still be off the table, and the next presidential election campaign will begin on Jan. 22, 2009.
/nausea
April 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pmTroll on voice of reason!
April 28th, 2008 at 3:07 pmThe USA needs UN election observers to certify they have a fair election.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm56 - I'm not exactly sure, but I believe the distance is 1/2 mile. At least it is here in Los Angeles.
And I don't drag my groceries with me when I go to the polls. Why on earth do you?
April 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pmL. Hussein Annie Says
April 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
56 - I’m not exactly sure, but I believe the distance is 1/2 mile. At least it is here in Los Angeles.
_____________________________________________
I just wanted to point out that the "law" about polling places being within walking distance must be a state or local one. My polling place here in Raleigh is 4.2 miles away from my home (I just measured it on Google Maps). That might be walking distance for somebody younger and more fit than I, but not for me.
However, your point about not all voters having photo IDs (which is what I think spawned this conversation) is well taken. Not everyone drives to the polls. People do walk, they get rides from others, and they take public transportation. It would be unreasonable to assume that everybody who votes has a driver's license because they can't get to the polls without one. I didn't get my driver's license until I was 28 (and then only because I was being relocated to Southern California), and I have been a registered voter since I was 18. That's ten years of finding my way to the polls without driving, and I don't think I'm unique.
April 28th, 2008 at 4:03 pmI'd like to stick it to the GOP on this one...but I can't. Here in California, you can't do crap without a valid ID. You can vote here without it, but if you don't have a issued ID you are basically an Un-Person. No one will hire you (not talking about any illegal immigration businesses here), an apartment manager won't let you tour an apartment without you leaving it there, hell...you'd be screwed if the police pulled you over and you didn't have any form of ID on you. And we do have a lot of farm land and it is very easy to register for an ID if you're a senior citizen in need of one.
Sorry, but not having an issued ID is what leaves you open to identity theft and the intimation that it could be used in voter fraud. If you don't own your own ID, it can become someone elses just like that, now without the proper proof that you are who you say you are.
April 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pmReading the decision and dissent is amazing. It just shows the usual Republican and right wing way of thinking.
1. There is absolutely no evidence of in person voter fraud in the state of Indiana. However, there was the Boss Tweed ring in 1868. Besides, Indiana had fraud by absentee ballot (a method still permitted in Indiana) during a primary. Even experts testifying that there were some instances of in person voter fraud elsewhere in the country noted that it was very infrequent. REMEMBER, REPUBLICANS USE TINY PROBLEMS TO JUSTIFY SIGNIFICANT AND OPPRESSIVE ACTION (THINK WMD AND IRAQ)
2. Yes, the Republicans barely conceal their contempt for the individual, especially the poor and elderly. They would rather make every person casting a provisional ballot because they are too poor to obtain a voter ID card (yes, the homeless and poor do not always have passports, military ID's or birth certificates and may not be able to afford one to obtain a free voter ID) travel to the one clerk of courts in a county rather than fill out an affidavit on the spot. Why? It may delay the voting line at the precinct.
3. The majority opinion even concedes that the legislation was probably politically motivated. I agree that such motivation does not automatically render the legislation invalid. However, it would make me suspicious when such burdensome requirements are placed on the process that it would obviously impede the poor, elderly and dispossessed from voting to the assistance of one party. I would be suspicious when (against the recommendations of the Carter commission report relied upon in part by the state during argument) the state makes the ID requirement immediate as opposed to providing a phase in period and conducting outreach. I am suspicious when such legislation seems to be timed to impact this presidential election. I would be suspicious when the majority opinion admits that there is really no evidence of an immediate threat to the integrity of the system.
Yes, the Republicans will cheer at how this justified their actions in the DoJ. They are justified by the God damned bastards on the Supreme Court. It is time to just seize and kill the bastards. There is no law, there is no justice. Ther is no constitution. Nothing short of a bloody purge and execution of these bastards will suffice.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:45 pm