Spakovsky: Supreme Court voter ID ruling ‘vindicates the Bush Justice Department.’
Spakovsky: Supreme Court voter ID ruling ‘vindicates the Bush Justice Department.’
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that “that states may require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots.” The ruling, which opens “the way for wider adoption of a measure that Republicans say combats fraud,” is now being touted by President Bush’s stalled FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky as vindication for the politicization of the Justice Department under President Bush:
“This decision not only confirms the validity of photo ID laws, but it completely vindicates the Bush Justice Department and refutes those critics who claimed that the department somehow acted improperly when it approved Georgia’s photo ID law in 2005,” said Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission and a former Justice Department official.
In 2005, over the objections of a team of Justice Department lawyers and analysts, von Spakovsky approved Georgia’s voter ID law, which a federal judge ultimately compared it to a Jim Crow-era poll tax.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
26 Responses to “Spakovsky: Supreme Court voter ID ruling ‘vindicates the Bush Justice Department.’”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Hans,
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:24 amWell, seeing as how this is BUSHCO’s Supreme Court, it’s a little like having the Board of Directors of your privately-held company “vindicate” your proposals — especially when the BoD consists of your relatives.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:24 am“You all say we’re misbehaving? Well, let’s ask these people who are beholden to us for their jobs… they say we’re right! So there.”
April 29th, 2008 at 10:35 amI understand that this law does not apply to absentee ballots and that is where most of the reports of fraud were reported.
April 29th, 2008 at 10:44 amWay to go for passing a law to prevent a problem that doesn’t exist.
This is the jerk Bush is holding up 83 confirmations for because he needs Hans as head of the Federal Election Commission?
Boy, Bush really needs him in place by November, eh?
April 29th, 2008 at 10:46 amPolitical capital, blah, blah, blah.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:04 amI think I understand both sides of this issue.
On the one hand, it would be a deterrent to voter fraud. The debate seems to be how much fraud do we have? Or is it really a problem?
On the other hand, it might make it more difficult (or less likely) for some (typically, Democratic voters) to vote.
Republicans want the requirement mainly because it helps them. Democrats don’t want the requirement because it mainly hurts them.
This is a very partisan issue.
If they are going to require IDs, the government should pay for them. The government should also ensure that the voters who might be less likely to vote, won’t be disenfranchised. (ie. ensure and educate that the new requirement won’t be used for other tracking or law enforcement purposes)
April 29th, 2008 at 11:09 ambackup Says:
I think I understand both sides of this issue.
You must be happier than a pig in sh!t, being able to straddle an issue like this.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:14 amgummitch. I could have said it better, but it was supposed to be an indication of my openness to considering other points of view on the subject.
While we’re at it, what are your feelings on the topic?
April 29th, 2008 at 11:26 amMy “feelings” are that it is perfectly reasonable to request some form of identification for voters, but requiring a government ID which in turn requires costs and documentation often unavailable to the poor (especially the rural poor) is a deliberate attempt by Republicans to quash voting, particularly given the utter lack of evidence of voter fraud and ballot stuffing. Simply having the government pay for the ID itself is insufficient, but Republicans would never agree so it is moot.
Your assessment is that Democrats oppose this law for pure self-interest and I thoroughly reject that view. Democrats (and liberals and Leftists) have long encouraged programs that increased voter registration. Period.
April 29th, 2008 at 11:35 amBushitCo = JimCrowRUs
April 29th, 2008 at 11:50 amThe only thing this vindicates is the Right’s strategy to pack the courts with judicial activists who are politically beholden to those who appoint them…
April 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pmZimzone Says:
This is the jerk Bush is holding up 83 confirmations for because he needs Hans as head of the Federal Election Commission?
Boy, Bush really needs him in place by November, eh?
Watch the Democrats cave in on him too…all talk of wanting to protect the voter gone in a show of “bipartisanship…”
April 29th, 2008 at 12:24 pmThe ruling, which opens “the way for wider adoption of a measure that Republicans say combats fraud,”
Even though they admitted that there was no evidence of this kind of fraud being committed. That’s what gets me.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:33 pmbackup Says:
Republicans want the requirement mainly because it helps them. Democrats don’t want the requirement because it mainly hurts them.
This is a very partisan issue.
This is not a partisan issue and the Democrats don’t want to defeat this law because it hurts them. Democrats want to defeat this law because it disenfranchises voters.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:36 pmGummitch. Remember the effort to discount the overseas military mail-in ballots in 2000? It wasn’t an effort to increase voter participation.
I buy your assessment of Republican self interest, but the idea that Democrats are immune to similar self interest seems either selective partisan demogogary or just wishful naivity.
Democrats oppose this requirement for mainly one reason. It would be mostly their voters that may be less likely to vote, due to lack of ID.
I know my spelling is bad, thank you for bareing with me.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pmIn Pennsylvania, a driver’s license is sufficient. People can also obtain non-driver’s license photo ID’s. A voter’s registration card is acceptable. The photo ID is ONLY required when someone votes for the first time at a poll. Afterwards, the signature is sufficient. I’m guessing the ID is used to establish a reference for the signature.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:47 pmbackup Says:
Gummitch. Remember the effort to discount the overseas military mail-in ballots in 2000? It wasn’t an effort to increase voter participation.
Prove it. Prove any time when the Democrats interfered with people being able to vote. Put your money where your mouth is. Link to some reputable news source that proves what you are saying.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:48 pmgummitch - I agree. A special government ID should not be required. Any valid form of identification should be acceptable for first time voting.
April 29th, 2008 at 12:50 pmBilbo. Here’s one.
http://archive.newsmax.com/ archives/ articles/ 2001/ 5/ 8/ 225831.shtml
April 29th, 2008 at 12:52 pmOut of curiosity, what is an acceptable form of identification? Must it be a state ID? Is an electric, telephone or credit card bill acceptable?
April 29th, 2008 at 12:56 pmbackup Says:
Bilbo. Here’s one.
http://archive.newsmax.com/ archives/ articles/ 2001/ 5/ 8/ 225831.shtml
Sorry backup, but newsmax is hardly an unbiased news source. I went out and refreshed my memory. The issue was that the Democrats were objecting to counting military ballots that were post dated after the election. THAT IS THE LAW IN FLORIDA. So, the Democrats were asking to follow the law and the Republicans were asking to ignore the law because they knew that ignoring the law would be in their favor.
The election people in Florida did not routinely count the votes of military people who sent their absentee ballot in after the closing date. But the wanted to this time because they needed every vote count they could get.
But, you must remember all those “hanging chad” ballots that didn’t get counted at all. What about disenfranchising those voters. It was OK by the Republicans because it was to their advantage.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:03 pmMs_Joanne Says:
Out of curiosity, what is an acceptable form of identification? Must it be a state ID? Is an electric, telephone or credit card bill acceptable?
What I read was that it had to be picture ID. Either a driver’s license of one of the picture ID cards that DMV’s issue.
The problem is that many people who don’t drive can’t get to the DMV to get the id and many can’t afford the attending fees.
And then when you get the ID you must show your birth certificate. When this issue first came up I was shocked at how many people in rural parts of America don’t have a birth certificate. Many were born at home at a time when it didn’t matter if you had a birth certificate.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pmBilbo. I concede the point. Although the military members made a valid effort to vote and many of the ballots arrived before election day, it was legal to discount the ballots that didn’t have a post mark. Although you could argue that legally discounting them goes against the spirit of ‘every vote counts’.
But, the law is the law. And again, I concede the point.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:16 pmFunny, the Republicans have been happily stealing elections electronically for the last twelve years; started by Chuck Hagel, who owned ES&S voting machine corporation, ran for Senate in Nebraska, with ES&S counting the votes… No Democrat said Boo about this little bit of election stealing. Trust Republican Corporations to count your vote in secret, electronically, with proprietary software…
And now the GOP Supreme Court has given its stamp of approval to some Indiana Photo ID requirement for voting. What a surprise…
Democrats should stop whining after they have been quiet and rolled over for GOP electronic election theft for the last twelve years.
What would Obama say? He would probably suggest that it is time to stop whining, time to move on and start a new movement to get valid Photo IDs for all voters…
April 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pmUnless the government pays for the ID card it is clearly a poll tax replacement. Disenfranchising citizens is what bananna republics do so its corrupt leaders can stay in power. It usually happens when the courts are in cahoots with the executive.
April 29th, 2008 at 8:43 pm