well done. I'd say a victory for common sense. And of course this will have an impact far beyond Indiana.......

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said he hadn't reviewed the decision, but he was "extremely disappointed" by it. Falk has said voter ID laws inhibit voting, and a person's right to vote "is the most important right." The ACLU brought the case on behalf of Indiana voters.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters—those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud—of the sort the law was designed to thwart—or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.

Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."

Scalia, 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.'"

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it.

Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

Stevens said these provisions also help reduce the burden on people who lack driver licenses.



Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

__________________
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

Clearly, Ken Falk is an asshole.

In his world, surely anyone who was ambulatory should be able to vote. Whether they're registered or not is not an issue. Whether they're here legally or not is not an issue.

Why would a minority be more likely to lack proper identification? I don't understand that. And the elderly? I don't get that, either. My Grandfather had a valid driver's license when he died at age 95.

Are there no places for the poor to go in order to obtain a state-issued ID card?

While it's true that we all have the right to vote (with obvious exceptions), there's nothing wrong with having guidelines in place to combat fraudulent voting. The way the ACLU would have it, someone could walk up to a polling station, give them my name, and then vote as they see fit.

If I show up after that, I won't be able to vote, because my name will already be marked. Ergo, my right to vote has been violated.

How someone sees that as okay is beyond me...

This will help to stop voter fraud. I can easily understand why the Democrats would be upset about that. Dead people, convicted felons, horses, cats and dogs will no longer be able to vote.

__________________
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

I think it is great, should help eliminate a big portion of the fraud. But, what about mail in registratiion? How will that be handled I wonder. The last election they said in NY that thousands of dead people had voted by mail in/early voting.

__________________
~Barbara

Never mind that there's no real evidence that any significant voter fraud has occured.

__________________
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

I've voted absentee a couple of times (because I vote at home from school), you have to provide your social security number (or at least the last four numbers) or your drivers license number, if I remember correctly. Not information that is exactly publicly accessible.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Who is "they?"

__________________
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

Excellent news.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Amazing that this even had to go to the Supreme Court.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

One needs a photo ID to use any kind of plasitc, get state and federal money and so it should be for voting.

So just what is wrong with showing a photo of who you are when voting?

__________________
Fear the Government

Do you really need an explanation for that?

It's up to each individual state now. I think the Blue states will remain with the status-quo while the Red states will change to requiring photo-IDs. This doesn't change much of anything unless it is federally mandated.

__________________


"We can't screw it up any worse than they have." - Barack Obama

Wanna bet?



"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...." - Rahm Emmanuel

The law seems pretty clear that the states get to decide how they hold elections as long as they dont discriminate on age, race, gender, etc. Ability to postivily id yourself is not in the constitution, and so requiring id is the right of the state. A lower court should have stopped this from wasting the SupComs time.

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

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

Well as many know - I live in Indiana.
Situations like elderly women voting twice in different precincts - these ladies truly believed that they should be able to vote for their belated husbands...odd thing of course is how on earth was all of the Dorothys and Irenes able to vote for all of the Franks and Joes. There were examples where deceased were "still" voting 10 years after the person died.

I can't see how any clear thinking person could think this is bad.
Nearlly everyone has a drivers license, and for those that don't - FREE photo ID's are available.

Well, ever since I've been of voting age, I've been required to present some form of identification in order to vote. Don't recall it ever being an issue in the state of Virginia.

But, still, is this really going to change anything? If someone is going to commit voter fraud, do you think they'll hesitate to get a fake ID? They're not exactly difficult to get your hands on.

I wonder what this ruling will do to DHS efforts in establishing a national ID in the form of a uniform driver licenses program in a national database? While DHS was using the clout of threatening to withhold federal payments to states not in compliance, over a dozen states have engaged in legislation to stop the DHS effort, which has been put on hold until resolved by the courts. Maybe if O'Sullivan notices this thread he can opine on how far the SCOTUS ruling might go with regard to states rights in DHS ID requirement.