Indiana Voter I.D. Law Upheld
Oh, you know the Democrats are royally ticked right now. (Start the Democrats chorus of the packed, right wing, Bush court in 3…2…1…)
According the Indy Star…
WASHINGTON — 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 deter fraud.
(Read more after the leap)
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush mirrored.
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.
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.
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. Tuesday’s decision comes a week before Indiana’s presidential primary.
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.
April 28th, 2008 at 11:16 am
YES!!!!!! *fist pump in the air*
I’m amazed the moonbat Justice Stevens actually voted to uphold the law on a 6-3 vote. AG candidate Greg Zoeller said he (speaking for *himself*, not the AG’s office) thought it would be 5-4 and which way that went all depended upon Justice Kennedy.
We now have at least one protection of our votes not being cancelled out by the Crown Hill Precinct.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I love the over the top language. It was a “splintered” decision, sez AP, but an analysis of the opinions show that the six majority Justices differed only on how to get from point A to point B. The mechanics are irrelevant — all six got safely to “We affirm.” Some “splintered” decision! The only splinter here is the one in the AP’s eye.
What there ought to be is a law restricting the inflammation index of political news articles. But that’s OK. Just put some ice on it, AP.
April 28th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I never understood how anyone in their right mind could say that this law was racist or was aimed at any specific group…
April 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Oh, and
“There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart (…)”
How would we know that, exactly?
April 28th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“It was a “splintered” decision, sez AP, but an analysis of the opinions show that the six majority Justices differed only on how to get from point A to point B.”
Moonbats of AP. Considering the journalist mutual admiration society bestowed an honor upon Matt Tully, this really doth bode poorly for the journalism profession.
A question of “Does the sun shine?” would lead to a 6-3 decision of SCOTUS with this court’s makeup. Bader-Ginsburg herself would likely proclaim the sun as unconstitutional because it could cause global warming.