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.

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.

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.

And I don’t drag my groceries with me when I go to the polls. Why on earth do you?

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

“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.

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.

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?

.

You know, for people who don’t have cars….?

This isn’t activist judges, this is ramming right wing radical ideology down the throats of everyone in the country.

‘Justice’ be dammed.

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….

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,