Not at all. I said the opposite. I think the Indiana law is valid. It's creating a voting ID law that would require indigents to pay for an acceptable ID for voting that would constitute a constructive poll tax. It's even a bigger picture involved: people are entitled to their constitutional rights as enumerated in the Constitution because they are considered inalienable rights. As the SCOTUS said in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections:

"[a] state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

Yes, many poor people do not vote. Many financially better off people don't either. I feel that is stupid, but that is their choice, though. But if anyone wants to vote, that is their exercising of a fundamental right and we must allow them to do so according to our own constitution without frustration to the point of denial of that right by statutory burdens. I've seen homeless people vote at the polls in fact in the course of my election poll official duties. You might be surprised at that, but some do. There is a person behind the story after all. I have noticed the local papers in my area interview or report such people to make human interest stories about the voting process. One was interviewed by the Philadelphia Inquirer this year during the PA primary. He was articulate and an activist for a homeless person. There is a homeless man who works for food at a nearby diner where I go frequently. He votes, and gets quite into politics talk and elections.

Indiana's law does not present a procedural scenario that can effectively deny someone the right to vote; it merely requires ID be presented at the polls or shortly thereafter.

A voter ID law in fact protects the right to vote too. For example, if I voted as you, your right to vote is being lost. Fraudulent and or otherwise illegal votes frustrate the rights of lawful voters to determine who gets elected.

However, Indiana's law does not act to strip a poor person from the ability to vote due to not being able to afford an ID, does not present a scenario where someone may not be able to obtain an authorised ID, and it does not punish someone who forgot their ID on voting day, or lost it just before voting, or was unaware of the ID requirement on voting day, etc. People can get a voter ID--free of charge to the indigent--and people can cast provisional ballots without ID at the voting polls and their votes will be counted provided they establish their identity at their local voting services centre within the next few days following the election day.

I agree here, just limited to what I said that would go beyond just doing that.

I'd agree that these documents should all be acceptable forms of ID with the exception of a birth certificate. That isn't secure enough, even with other photo IDs that are not on the authorised list.

Photo ID of a government issued nature should be required, but a voter ID card must, IMO, be available to those who cannot obtain the other forms of ID due to barriers (e.g., people who cannot obtain licences or passports due to disqualifications) and, in the case of indigents, no fee for such an ID be assessed.

I also believe that for those who lost, had stolen, forgot or were unaware of ID requirements should be able to cast a provisional ballot and be given a reasonable number of days by law to go to their local voter services division and prove who they are so their vote should count.

Now the state of alaska has a state id and at last count the cost was 5.00 now the cost might have gone up but even with it maybe going to 15.00 it is still cheap.
A voter card can be for any one, how are we has a social group be sure as to how is voting that day?

There was a time in this country that only land owners and male could vote.. yes times have changed and I like to think for the better, but there is a cost, we as states and a country as a whole need to find a way of making sure that the person that is voting is who they say they are.

A state ID of one form or another is so far the best way of doing so. Poor or not, 12th grade or not, there are some things that a person that is responible will do so that they can vote and not look for some reason not to.

__________________
Fear the Government

Not to mention it takes 10 minutes to get a new ID. I just did it a few months ago. Walked into the drivers license office, paid $10, took a picture, sat down for 10 minutes. Theres my new ID. And why isnt this stuff available to the authorities to look at on a laptop at the poll place? Im sure they have my license on file.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

I misunderstood you, so thanks for taking the time to clarify. For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would oppose this as it seems very reasonable, and even the SCOTUS agrees with me!

I found this on another website and thought it was pretty darn funny.

__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008

As James Taranto noted in The Best of the Web 4/30/2008, jackass leftist Associated Press got the story all wrong. Check this out (quoting):

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, upheld Indiana's requirement that voters present photo identification before casting ballots. Yesterday the Associated Press published a dispatch titled "Advocates: Voter ID Ruling May Disenfranchise US Voters." (AP Article Here).

It ran 15 paragraphs, required two reporters (Deborah Hastings got the byline; David Lieb "contributed"), and was totally one-sided, offering not a single argument in favor of voter ID requirements. It's possible that the AP did another dispatch titled "Advocates: Voter ID Ruling Helps Prevent Fraud," or some such, but we couldn't find it in a Factiva search.
-------------

This is typical of the liberal bullshit of championing bad ideas by stigmatizing the opponents thereof in the mainstream media.

They're just lucky I'm not in charge. I'd require membership to Rush Limbaugh 24/7 before one is allowed to vote.

There are some things about the original article that are troublesome, too. Such as:

Since when is a 6-3 ruling anything but "overwhelming"? If an election panned out that way, it'd be called a "massive landslide". If this were some leftist-friendly decision, it'd not be referred to as "splintered".

Who are the backers, AP? You told us who the opponents are.

Bush v. Gore was a 7-2 decision, you jackasses (referring to Associated Press, of course). Hardly reflected the "conservative-liberal" split that existed in the SCOTUS at the time.

__________________

"Compassionate Conservatism"?!?! That is a stupid phrase. Conservatism is inherently compassionate. It is liberalism that is cruel for the sake of maintaining a constituency.

Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

I've yet to read or hear even a single argument that supports that claim....

Depends. Last time I was at the DMV here in CO (been quite a while though), to get a state ID was like $35 or 40. That can be a bit of money to come up with if you're poor. Perhaps that's what they're talking about?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Well in either events, stevens, a lib member of the court, basically stated that the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few and that they ( Indiania) had addressed to the best of their ability the needs of those who have yet to acquire the proper ID.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I agree wholeheartedly, they could not even frame the issue correctly, but what do we expect really?

And its splintered when the libs don't get their way.....

And btw, Obama is a huge and vociferous backer of the none ID requirement.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Ahh, such intelligent conversation is prompted with the use of the term "the libs." Thank you for making sure everything remains civil.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

stevens is a lib member of the court as labeled by even the msm, so that now a point of contention? Obama is clearly a lib. and has a platform as such, and voting record, this is a secret?

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Completely missed the point.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

so explain it to me...

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

"Lib" is a perjorative, used to indicate disrespect.

When you use the phrase "the libs...." and then set off on some bogus generalization, you're only going to get two reactions: 1) the usual right-wing circle jerk where the usual suspects tell each other how right the characterization of those evil libs is. 2) frustration from those who would rather have a reasonable conversation.

Get it now?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Only if you think it is.

I know plenty of liberals who are proud to be liberals, and aren't bothered by the word "libs" at all. And then there are those who are bothered by it because they know that libs are bad...