12 nuns turned away from Indiana polls for lacking photo IDs.
12 nuns turned away from Indiana polls for lacking photo IDs.
Today, Sister Julie McGuire had to turn away 12 fellow Indiana nuns — all in their 80s or 90s — from a polling place because they lacked a state or federal photo ID, as mandated by the recent Supreme Court decision. AP reports:
“One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go do that,’” Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. “You have to remember that some of these ladies don’t walk well. They’re in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.”
Sister McGuire also underscored the difficulty in obtaining IDs for these women: “We’re going to take from now until November to get them out and get this done. You can’t do this like school kids on a bus. I wish we could.” More on the ID Divide here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
74 Responses to “12 nuns turned away from Indiana polls for lacking photo IDs.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
they were mistaken for penguins?
May 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pmWell, if we let these activist nuns vote, the terrorists win!
May 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pmI still support the ID rules.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:52 pmYou gotta watch out for them nuns…They might vote, and I don’t think they are part of the pro-torture crowd. And all this because Indiana has never had one case of voter fraud brought before a court in it’s history. Is we learnin’ yet?
May 6th, 2008 at 5:53 pmthis is how they are going to steal the election this year…well in part…democracy is bye bye in america for now…
May 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pmOf course you do. You’re a moron, but at least you’re stickin’ to yer guns.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pmNo way to tell if they were illegal aliens impersonating citizen penguins, eh? Way to go Indiana.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pmVA Voter Says:
I still support the ID rules.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
And you are still someone, who by your post here, shows a very low IQ… Again.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:59 pmBADGES? WE DON’T NEED NO STINKIN’ BADGES!
i would turn them away too…anyone dressed up in a ridiculous costume claiming to be the celibate wife and able to converse with an invisible dead “god” can’t have all their faculties in place
May 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pmWill this enforcement help Obama?
Isn’t it the dying off elderly most afraid of his race while in comparison, the young with a drivers license in support of Obama?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pmJust don’t make it harder to buy a gun. That freaks the freaks out!
May 6th, 2008 at 6:01 pmVA Voter and anymouse19
it’s most unfortunate there are no laws against stupidity, otherwise, you’d be in deep shit.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pmI’m flagging this because If I pointed out this guy as a moron I would be flagged.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pmanymouse19 Says:
Without an ID, how do you know I am who I say I am? Couldn’t I just pick a line (line E-J, perhaps), walk up to the table and pick a name that I can read upside down in the big green and white book? When asked for an ID, I could just say I don’t have one.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Pretty good scam! Did you learn this from the neocon playbook?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:03 pmMay ten thousand innocent voters be turned away lest there be a chance of even one fraudulent voter.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:03 pmYou’re right, Va Voter. I apologize for calling you a moron.
I should have let your post speak for itself.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pmanymouse19 Says:
Without an ID, how do you know I am who I say I am? Couldn’t I just pick a line (line E-J, perhaps), walk up to the table and pick a name that I can read upside down in the big green and white book?
Follow along with the adults now. If that happened, there would be some cases of attempted voter fraud, wouldn’t there be? The ‘real’ guy shows up to vote, but his name is already marked as voted - the ‘real’ voter might complain. But there has never been a case, so this isn’t a legitimate issue, is it? It is a solution brought forth by republicans to limit potential democratic votes - pure and simple. Now if you can tell us you are scared of dems and don’t want them in office, say so. That would be honest. But again, that would be beyond you.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pmUh-oh… anymouse19 isn’t gonna get any ice cream from his handlers tonight… he let slip one the wingnuts’ favorite voter fraud tricks…
May 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pmOMG - Another case of voter fraud that Rove and the RNC was warning us about.
Good thing the SCOTUS is stacked with symphathizers.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
Uh-oh… anymouse19 isn’t gonna get any ice cream from his handlers tonight… he let slip one the wingnuts’ favorite voter fraud tricks…
Yeah, even worse is that though is he won’t be able to go out on a ‘date’ with Limbaugh. I think anymouse19 really needs the money.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pmIn the abstract, I.D. rules sound harmless. The problem is that not only has no one ever demonstrated any voter fraud without them, they keep the poor and elderly from voting because their IDs are often not up to date and they often can’t afford the fee. In some states, ID fees are pretty hefty. If there was evidence of voter fraud, then that would be different. Many Western countries allow registration on election day and there is almost no fraud. Claiming fraud is a lie as it does not exist. All this is is another effort to keep a certain voting block from voting.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:11 pmThis is a real example of voter fraud — fraud perpetrated on voters, not by voters — by “our” government!
State-sponsored terrorism (on old, retired nuns no less!)…
May 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pmSo if you mail in early, you have to show ID?!
May 6th, 2008 at 6:14 pmCould someone show us the evidence of the “voter fraud” that this is supposed to remedy? Because it seems to me that all this is doing is keeping people from voting - which was the original intent of the law’s sponsors.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:15 pmSorry, but this is a protest. How is they could get to the voting both, but not the DMV in the 10 days following this? That makes no sense… I generally am against voter ID laws because they cost money and therefore discriminate against the poor. The reason this law was upheld is that it’s free to obtain an ID, and they let you vote provisionally (which the nuns refused to do), and give you 10 days to obtain an ID after voting. This law has been in place for years in Indiana, why did it take these little old ladies until today to go obtain an ID?
Like I said, it’s just a protest to rile people up…
May 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pmWith a traditional voter turnout hovering around the fifty percent mark — for important elections! — the best thing we can do, apparently, is make it MORE DIFFICULT to vote.
thus goes the “logic” of wingnuts.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pmMerlin Says:
So if you mail in early, you have to show ID?!
As I understand it you do, from the standpoint that you must cite your ID# in the mail in. As far as voter id laws go, Indiana is probably the only somewhat reasonable one that’s been passed…
May 6th, 2008 at 6:19 pm#26 - I take it you haven’t spent a lot of time getting a lot of elderly people with mobility issues to a scheduled event.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:20 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
With a traditional voter turnout hovering around the fifty percent mark — for important elections! — the best thing we can do, apparently, is make it MORE DIFFICULT to vote.
thus goes the “logic” of wingnuts.
Actually it doesn’t make it more difficult to vote, but it does mean you have to actually obtain an ID if you want your vote to count.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:21 pmTheToonGuy Says:
#26 - I take it you haven’t spent a lot of time getting a lot of elderly people with mobility issues to a scheduled event.
Actually I have, and if it required them to have an ID, and I knew this months in advance, I would have made sure they had it…
May 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pmWhy does Indiana hate nuns?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:23 pmAdmittedly not entirely on topic but what sort of id and reasonable regualtions does Indiana place on the purchase of firearms. I am inclined to think the nuns would have found less issues if they wanted to be a “well armed militia”
May 6th, 2008 at 6:23 pmToday I can get out of work for an hour, walk to my polling place, tell the poll worker my name, have her check it off, and I go vote.
If I was in a situation where I didn’t have an official ID, I could still do that. In a state with strict voter ID requirements, I could not. I would have to obtain an officially-sanctioned ID before voting. That makes it more difficult to vote.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:24 pmrastaman Says:
i would turn them away too…anyone dressed up in a ridiculous costume claiming to be the celibate wife and able to converse with an invisible dead “god” can’t have all their faculties in place
It would be wrong to turn away a Muslim-American woman with comparable garb. How would a nun be any different?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:29 pmHey rhf —
The only ID required should be the registration card the state government mails you. The government can do more to ensure that card isn’t used more than once during the same election cycle.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pmDo you think it would be headlines on TP if the nuns had been prevented from boarding an airplane without ID. What if they had tried to write a check without ID? Think TP would be upset with that?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:40 pmVoting is a serious matter and everyone, Democrat, Republican, Nutroot should show an ID in order to vote. Voter fraud will still exist but showing an ID will cut down on it somewhat.
Congratulations, Supremes! Indiana now has officially disenfranchised more nuns than they have busted actual illegal voters, either before or after this mean-spirited law with no proven need went into effect. This is about disenfranchising the poor and the elderly, who typically are not part of the Republican base, and nothing else.
For many using a walker, it’s a battle royal just getting in and out of the bathtub, much less getting down to their local department of motor vehicles within a specified period of time. People would do better by not assuming everyone else’s life presents exactly equal challenges as theirs.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:43 pmJustice Stevens: Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor—though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”
The only recent example of voter fraud mentioned, and it has nothing to do with in-person voting? This reasoning was used to validate voter id in Indiana?
My opinion of Stevens sinks, ever lower…
May 6th, 2008 at 6:45 pmOf course it will. Diebold is still around, after all.
Oh, wait — that’s election fraud. Different thing. haven’t seen many Republican efforts to attack that lately, have we?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:48 pmhaven’t seen many Republican efforts to attack that lately, have we?
Next year…
May 6th, 2008 at 6:49 pmVoting is a serious matter and everyone, Democrat, Republican, Nutroot should show an ID in order to vote. Voter fraud will still exist but showing an ID will cut down on it somewhat.
Please tell us when the last case of voter fraud was prosecuted. Any idea? Any idea, at all? How about NEVER. So you still cling to the right side notion that voter fraud exists and damnit, you are do something about it. But, no problems are there for yo to cite. Republicans can only win elections by limiting an American citizen’s right to vote (yea democracy). If the populace votes, dems win. That is what you are frightened of - not some non-existant fraud.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:51 pmThis is the price the Supreme Court is willing to pay to prevent voter fraud. It’s another step away from the Republic established by our Founding Fathers.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pmNeocons commit the worst kind of voter fraud, as evidenced in ‘00 and Ohio in ‘04, yet they have everyone believing we must clamp down on those libruls where no fraud exists.
You neocon shits with the lowest IQs of every type are so good at turning the blame on innocent people for the crimes YOU commit.
An educated neocon will put that education to use by screwing others out of a deal.
Educated people with an ethical mindset (hint: liberals) are catching on to your little games, neocons, and it’s only a matter of time before you pay for what you’ve done to this country.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pmThe Supreme Court has become a partisan tool. What an embarrassment for our country.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:12 pmHagee and McCain must be ecstatic …………… testing before the General Election in November……………
May 6th, 2008 at 7:16 pmResponse to anymouse 19 who said:
You obviously have not read the decision. Indeed, the historical examples cited by the court actually dated back to Boss Tweed in 1868. There are other examples into the very early 20th Century.
The one case of fraud found in Indiana actually involved the use of absentee ballots. Hmm, those even under the new system have less protection against fraud than under the law for those voting in person.
President Bush politicized the Department of Justice specifically to go after voter fraud. More resources have been poured into this effort than at any other time in our history. Yet, no cases involving actual fraud at the polling place has been tried, let alone resulting in conviction. A few cases involving improper registration have been successful. Strangely enough, most had never even tried to vote.
Given the size of todays state and national electorate, it would be difficult to imagine how a party or interest group could pull enough people together in order to influence an election. Just imagine that in a state with a population of 1 million that it would take 10.000 people to sway the vote by 1-2%. An amazing and daunting logistical task would you not agree?
This is why in the past the overwhelming number of fraud cases involved local elections where the number would be very small. Even these date back many years and were usually perpetrated by absentee ballots or other means. Thus, is this enough to justify the current restrictions? I doubt it. One of the Republican purveyors of stricter voter ID laws noted that it would depress Democratic votes by about 3%.
Oh yes, in Indiana, the voter ID card is free. However, one must have a copy of their birth certificate, valid passport or other documentation that many who are homeless, aged or minority would not have in hand. Certified copies of these documents are not inexpensive and may not be readily available to an individual who lives in a state outside of their current state of residency.
Additionally, the Indiana law requires that a person travel to one office in the county to execute an affidavit supporting their provisional ballot. There are numerous voting precincts within a county. There is only one Clerk of Courts. This is why the nuns would have trouble within the 10 day period. Some were in their eighty’s and ninety’s as well as needing special transportation. I believe that they had originally attempted to vote at a precinct pretty close to their normal habitat.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:33 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
The reason this law was upheld is that it’s free to obtain an ID, and they let you vote provisionally (which the nuns refused to do), and give you 10 days to obtain an ID after voting. This law has been in place for years in Indiana, why did it take these little old ladies until today to go obtain an ID?
God you are a moron. It is not free to obtain a photo id in IN. As far as them waiting to get a photo ID, perhaps they were unclear on the concept and thought that their picture passports would work. Finally, your reading comprehension is zilch. I guess you missed this part of the post:
They weren’t given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said.
They did not turn down provisional ballots, they were not given provisional ballots.
Do you stay up nights studying stupid? Because you have become a master at it.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:09 pmRHF - This law has been in place for years in Indiana, why did it take these little old ladies until today to go obtain an ID?
Another brilliant statement by a moron who must have missed the Supreme Court decision that IN could require photo ID. The law was not in effect, moron, because it was being appealed.
Since there has never been a proven case of voter fraud, please tell us why you think this law is necessary.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:10 pmanymouse19 Says:
Without an ID, how do you know I am who I say I am? Couldn’t I just pick a line (line E-J, perhaps), walk up to the table and pick a name that I can read upside down in the big green and white book? When asked for an ID, I could just say I don’t have one. I doubt that is what the nuns had in mind of course, but the law is the law and applies to everyone, even priests and nuns.
Or you could use your troll super powers and read the mind of the person at the table.
I don’t know about where you vote, but whenever I voted in a polling place they matched signatures.
What you and your buddies fail to notice is that there is zero evidence of people showing up to vote as someone else, and that states have had years of practice avoiding such problems. You’re far more likely to simply end up standing in line at the wrong precinct.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:15 pmI was with my parents today when they stopped by the courthouse to vote early. No one asked to any ID, no one questioned who they were, or if they were who they said they were.
The only voter fraud that goes on in this country — that has any real effect — is the fraud perpetrated on the voters themselves.
These nuns being turned away from the voting booth is proof of that.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:17 pmIt astonishes me that anyone would defend a system that deprives a 90-year-old nun of the right to vote. Isn’t the fact that her name is on the registry for that precinct, and that she’s sitting there with a bunch of other ancient nuns any indication at all that she’s not there to defraud anyone? How stupid can y’all be?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:18 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Since there has never been a proven case of voter fraud, please tell us why you think this law is necessary.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Because the people being turned away are likely Obama voters, and RHF knows Hillary will have to cheat to win.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:19 pmAnd what really frosts my butt is that the people pushing these stupid laws are the very first people to whine about government intruding on their lives. Then they turn around and create a totally unnecessary and intrusive bureaucracy to deal with a nonexistent problem.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:22 pmYikes. Time to overturn the SC. Maybe impeach a couple of them, too.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pmIronic, isn’t it, the trolls get themselves in a lather about some retired nuns in Indiana, but popah(?) Cutler deliberately voting in the wrong precinct in Florida?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pmHypocrit, your name is troll.
take care
tony and guidedog Lido
No ID?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pmVery suspicious.
We need to send those nuns to Gitmo for a little questioning.
I bet a little ENHANCED interrogation will get them to ‘fess up any Al-Qaeda links.
How much longer are you going to post nothing but smart ass immature comments.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:57 pmIf a troll can’t act like an adult he doesn’t belong here .
By the way, are you in the top 2%, or you another right wing millionaire wanaabe
for #58
May 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pmTo be fair about the whole process, the nuns wanted to vote wearing regular clothing, but they just couldn’t get out of the habit.
Can we start a rumor that Pastor Hagee kept them from voting?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:59 pmI have voted in my community for the last 40 years. Within 5 minutes of my home. This year they moved the polling place to the county seat and now it’s a 75 mile drive to vote….think that won’t slow it down?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:10 pmanymouse19 Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
First, you start thinking like an American.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:14 pmLet me guess, Fred. You live a “blue” county.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:15 pmCareful, bentley — you’re setting the bar pretty high for trolls. We’re lucky if they can get through a post with no misspelled words.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pmI am against the voter ID; but, wish people would get upset about other ID requirements. When I moved to Maryland, I let my Washington State Driver’s license expire without renewing it. However, even though I worked for the Federal Government with picture ID had numberous credit cards, I could do nothing without Maryland ID. I finally was forced to go to the DMV and get a Maryland State ID. It cost $15; and, a lot of time and energy.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:17 pmCatholic nuns turned away…and Scalia is CATHOLIC? Now THAT’S poetic justice.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:49 pm.
Look people, voter fraud is a misconception…
When they registered to vote locally, their ID should have been checked then! That is where the fraud occurs.
Only in America, de-MOCK-racy pokes fun at what it means to truly BE a democratic nation…
America tries, she really does, but there are some people who hate us for our freedoms and seek ways and debate the merits to undermining those very freedoms that have defined what America meant.
The SCOTUS was incorrect in their assessment…
It is NOT an American Principle to turn away registered voters. PERIOD! If tolerated, then how can we call ourselves a democracy?
.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:30 am.
#58 anymouse19 Says:
——————————————————————————–
If you care so much, why don’t you start a 501(c)(3) to get photo i.d. cards for the poor? Soros would support that. Or get them all photo i.d. cards paid for by raising taxes on the top 2% of wage earners, or on the “windfall profits” of the evil corporations. Come on. Start thinking like Democrats.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
.
I didn’t know that turning away registered voters was an American Principle to defend. Now, why did Bush invade Iraq…? Oh, that’s right, his big bad-ass “democracy” [at the end of a gun(aka tyranny)] and “freedom agenda”. So, why can’t we set the example here at home then?
.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:37 amWhat a freakin’ wasteland this (website) is. Man, this is worse than the Yahoo Message boards. There are more idiots per square inch here than you can shake a stick at. No wonder why liberal radio stations always go bankrupt, their audience is morally and intellectually bankrupt.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:12 amFinally a Supreme Court decision that forces the separation of church and state.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:51 amHave we struck a nerve a nerve, troll johnsom?
Sorry, didn’t mean to interrupt your fact-free rant.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:00 amWell, one thing is certain…at least in the case of these nuns, concerns that the new ID laws would disenfranchise voters in the lower socio-economic strata appear to have been justified. Since all of these nuns were in their 80’s and 90’s, including a few who are not completely mobile, it seems safe to assume that many if not all of them are retirees…and to say the very least, retired nuns are not exactly known for living high on the hog. One of the vows that a nun traditionally takes is one of poverty — so whatever kind of employment she may pursue in her life, most if not all of the money she earns generally goes towards the order to which she belongs. Granted, twelve people is not a large number but that doesn’t mean that their disenfranchisement is of no consequence — and since Indiana is not one of the wealthiest states, it seems reasonable to conclude that there are other people like this there.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:49 amPretty amazing how those “justices”‘ managed to get the decision out just a few days before the primary, giving little notice or time for those nuns and others to get state permission to vote and how the decision was narrowly crafted so to apply just to Indiana and its vital Democratic primary. Was the latter perhaps a compromise to placate a certain faction of the Democratic party whose diminishing hope for power was riding on that primary?.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:04 amUosdwis Says:
————————————————————-Catholic nuns turned away…and Scalia is CATHOLIC? Now THAT’S poetic justice.
Not just Scalia, but Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito are also Catholic. I hope these GOP hacks are happy about their disenfranchisement of nuns.
May 8th, 2008 at 2:15 amThis reminds me a little of those old black and white films depicted Germany or communist Russia. You know the ones that show some overzealous security officer or soldiers demanding “Your papers!”. I am just glad the ladies weren’t shot on the spot.
May 8th, 2008 at 1:30 pm