http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iegvd98ph9koi4IJgrhdaPAwZsxQD90ATLAO1

Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

By MARK SHERMAN – 1 hour ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights. The decision validates Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

Seems reasonable.

I always take my ID when voting so there can be no mistakes! I see no issue with this.

I can't see a problem with this, unsure of the validity of the opposing sides arguement.

Provided that there is a way to obtain a photo ID for free, it seems reasonable to me too.

There are 20 states with laws like this in place. According to WTOP (Washington's News Radio) in those states, after the laws were created, elderly and minority votership went down. I know in the past I volunteered with the Ed Rendel campaign and drove elderly people to the polls on election day, but no one goes a week before to drive the elderly people to get their IDs.

Indiana has a neat thing in their law where you can vote without an ID, you just have to get one up to 10 days after voting for your vote to count. That alleviates some of the problems.

That being said, its not entirely unreasonable and after a few years when it becomes the norm it won't be a big deal. The trick is just getting the IDs for the people who don't drive to get alternative forms of ID.

in those states, after the laws were created, elderly and minority votership went down.I would love to see those statistics.

But what the hell, maybe the Voter ID worked then.

As long as the state provides a no-cost (or at least minimal cost) voter ID that seems like a net win in all cases, though I question who hasn't managed to get a driver's license, school ID, passport, or even in some cases library card and yet is somehow qualified to make sound decisions.

I don't see the problem with this, at a state level.

The potential for it to get wrapped up in the whole Real ID mess isn't all that exciting though.

I love the "flagrant examples" given to support this decision. "While the brief indicates that the record evidence of in-person fraud was overstated because much of the fraud was actually absentee ballot fraud or voter registration fraud, there remain scattered instances of in-person voter fraud." Boss Tweed in 1868, one guy in Washington in 2004, and one case in Indiana but which was an issue of absentee ballot fraud, which this law doesn't cover.

So, in-person voter fraud is extremely rare but gets a law against it that may affect the voting of likely Democrat supporters (minorities, elderly, disabled, etc.) while absentee ballot fraud -- possibly something of a problem -- goes unaddressed.

I'm not sure what DMV hours are in Indiana, but if they keep regular daytime hours then those who lack the ID may have to take time from work -- this isn't 'free' for those persons.

If you can't find time to get an ID then you most likely won't have the time to vote.

The largest group of individuals who don't have an ID and could legitimately run afoul of this are the elderly. My maternal grandmother, who lived alone the entire latter half of her life, developed shingles in her left eye at age 74, became legally blind, and thus could not drive from then on - when her licence expired, she did not renew it, and after age 75 most states require you to renew on an annual basis. While she lived to be 90, and quite a sharp cookie until the end, too, and hopped the bus where she wanted to go or had friends drive her to the store or church even after she entered an assisted living facility, did not have a *current* legal ID for perhaps the last ten years of her life (she had a library card, which wasn't of the photo variety, although I expect most are now).

Most of the elderly people I know feel very strongly about voting - since I live downtown now there were a lot of elderly people, many from elder housing or assisted living facilities voting at my station, and a surprising number stayed for the caucus, (including a very charming 80-something Colombian immigrant with jet-black dyed hair who came to the US as a teen in 1948 whom I talked to for a while), and I think this raises concerns about how 'strict' the states should be allowed to be with the photo ID requirement. In the case of the Indiana law:

Under Indiana's law, voters must present a government-issued photo ID with an expiration date that has not elapsed. The law does not accept Veterans' IDs, Congressional IDs, student IDs, or work IDs.

This is where I think the Supreme Court erred in their ruling. While I don't object to requiring *some* sort of legal ID provided provisions are made for the elderly, disabled, and poor to get them an no cost, I think this law clearly *will* disenfranchise a fairly large number of legitimate voters.

As an additional potential issue, many states allow those with perfect driving records to renew their drivers' licenses by mail, sending only a perforated paper card that the owner is supposed to carry with the old license - will an expired picture suffice, or can these individuals be denied the right to vote too?

I think passing such a ruling without considering the burden of such a requirement, or requiring the states to provide no-cost state I.D. cards to the elderly and disabled (and poor) runs the risk of unconstitutionality as it amounts to a (very small) tax on voting. Even so, in rural areas this may present a significant burden to the elderly, disabled, and poor as someone has to *take* them to get said I.D; and lest you think this is a non-issue, when I took a disabled friend of mine (who lives in rural Alabama) to lunch when I visited him a few years ago, he had not left his home in eighteen months (except for a trip to the hospital, and a carefully orchestrated fishing trip), as caregivers brought him and his elderly father their food, medication, and did their home care, and leaving the home was difficult for him. He does plan, however, on voting in this November's election :).

As Thor said, I see a lot more potential issues with fraud with absentee voting than the in-person variety, which this ruling doesn't address. My problems with this ruling stem not from the issue of providing positive identification itself, but from the fact that they have given a green light to a law which is both very strict in its requirements and makes no provisions for those who currently cannot meet them.

Regards,
Nydia

Don't mutate a system to allow for weaknesses. Fix the system, ie get photo id's, and then find ways to help those that are unable to get them the general way.

Just flat out shortsighted to set a system to your weakest denominator. You certainly wouldn't build a process that way.

You certainly wouldn't build a process that way.Fandros :)

I haven't worked too closely with the Air Force yet, but 3 of the other branches certainly do this.

And you're right. If it's hard for the photo ID's to be made, make it easier.

heh Akipt I didn't learn how to redefine process in the military. I learned the fun of that while learning the Toyota Production system.

(including a very charming 80-something Colombian immigrant with jet-black dyed hair who came to the US as a teen in 1948 whom I talked to for a while),

Just had to pick at you a bit, but how could have emigrated here in 1948 as a teenager and be 80 something? Is there a rift in time somewhere?

"This is where I think the Supreme Court erred in their ruling. While I don't object to requiring *some* sort of legal ID provided provisions are made for the elderly, disabled, and poor to get them an no cost, I think this law clearly *will* disenfranchise a fairly large number of legitimate voters."

Actually, the people challenging the law did not introduce evidence of even *one* voter in Indiana who would have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by the voter law. The court was therefore faced with a law that furthered a legitimate state interest which did not present an undue burden on any state residents. Perhaps in another state with a higher population of citizens lacking photo id, this law would create an undue burden.

.

Actually, the people challenging the law did not introduce evidence of even *one* voter in Indiana who would have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by the voter law. The court was therefore faced with a law that furthered a legitimate state interest which did not present an undue burden on any state residents. Perhaps in another state with a higher population of citizens lacking photo id, this law would create an undue burden.

.

Just something I want to bring up, but I don't know how it works exactly. Indiana has a huge Amish population. Seeing as how they shun most forms of technology, do they tend to have picture IDs? I know they tend to vote.

They're allowed to use technology when it comes to interacting with the outside world to a certain extent.

I don't think they'd block the use of photo ID since it's to help fight voter fraud.

But they'd have to stand in front of a camera, and interact with technology with the outside world (since someone at the BMV would have to take their picture). Dunno, that's why I brought it up.

If they don't have picture IDs though, that would be a sizable portion of the voter base in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that a policy like this would disenfranchise.

Now... I'm not against having people show ID to vote. Picture ID might limit it too much though. Two other forms of non-picture ID would be sufficient for me. Utility bill + SS card, or the like. This is something that anyone that wanted to vote could produce if they didn't have a picture ID.

"Actually, the people challenging the law did not introduce evidence of even *one* voter in Indiana who would have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by the voter law. The court was therefore faced with a law that furthered a legitimate state interest which did not present an undue burden on any state residents. Perhaps in another state with a higher population of citizens lacking photo id, this law would create an undue burden. .
The people supporting the law did not introduce into evidence even *one* case of in-person vote fraud in Indiana before erecting this barrier. The only problem they could point to concerned absentee ballot fraud, which the law does not address. Clearly, if the lawmakers wanted to forward "legitimate state interest," they would construe a law that would cover actual fraud vs. imagined. Lawmakers could also put in place concomitant steps to increase registration by those who would find the barrier's hurdle the most difficult to overcome. The law is politically motivated disenfranchisement, nothing more.

Just had to pick at you a bit, but how could have emigrated here in 1948 as a teenager and be 80 something? Is there a rift in time somewhere?

Girls and Hillary supporters are really bad at math!

(yeah, yeah, move to Nag)

In all seriousness, someone could have immigrated at 19 in February of 1948 and turned 80 in March of 2008, but yeah, that is a mighty slim window there. Perhaps 'teenage" was used a bit more liberally ... sort of like sniper fire ;-p

She was, in fact, 19 when she emigrated, in order to marry a fellow she was sweet on. And yeah, it was late, and I used '80s' in a casual manner.

Would all of you hair-splitters prefer exact figures on your casual anecdotes next time? :)

Warm regards,
Nydia

Like I said, I was just picking at you :P

Golly gosh guys. If they mandate picture ID's how are all those wonderful "guest workers" supposed to vote?

http://www.illegalaliens.us/votefraud.htm

Zomg Brown People... Panic!

ZOMG! Non-US Citizens swaying elections!

You are a true unadulterated doughnut hole if you think I am so against Illegal Immigration just because of the color of ones skin.

I have no problem whatsoever with photo ID being required to vote, with the caveat that it should be provided at no cost; it is, after all, being mandated, and so those that are requiring it should be responsible for providing it.

Anything else is simply a voter tax.

I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for gas to get to my polling place. That's like a voting tax too!

I suppose I could walk, but then who's going to pay for my missed billable hours? Another voting tax, arg!

Pretty simple really. disallow mail in voter registration. allow for reasonable doubt for ID. as in 4-3 items that point in favor of validity of who you are and then issue a photo voter ID at the time of registration. free of charge.

I don't think it's fair that I have to pay for gas to get to my polling place. That's like a voting tax too!

I suppose I could walk, but then who's going to pay for my missed billable hours? Another voting tax, arg!


You seem to be determined to join the ranks of the ridiculous on these boards, for some reason. You usually look at the merits of debate rather than toss off silly non-arguments.

Requiring the photo ID puts an additional hardship on the poor and elderly on fixed incomes. While there are plenty of voter drives that provide transportation, either supplied by a candidate or by the Party's themselves, or even by civic minded volunteers, requiring some groups to dip into their meal or rent or medication money to purchase an ID to be able to exercise their right to vote should rankle everyone. The idea of an ID is not the problem.

As Velvet suggested, Indiana (and those other states that require same) are needing to simply provide a photo ID booth at each voting center and upon provision of specified identification a photo ID can be issued, which will then be in the voter's possession for future voting as well.

And, as Thor has pointed out, why are they focusing on in-person voters, that have had minimal fraud reports, rather than on the absentee voters?
The subject of voter photo IDs is a valid one, but the appearance in how it has been managed is one of disenfranchising and limiting voter turn-out.

Indiana voters have how much time between the SC decision and the primary to obtain photo IDs?

You seem to be determined to join the ranks of the ridiculous on these boards, for some reason. You usually look at the merits of debate rather than toss off silly non-arguments.

If you didn't understand the point of the hyperbole, I'm sorry it was lost on you. Rest assured that if you weren't in such a hurry to assume it was a "silly non-argument", you may have understood my point.

Anyway:

This whole nanny-state mentality is just silly. In this day and age, requiring a photo ID for something as important as voting seems like a no-brainer.

In what possible way does it make sense that there's more security involved in opening a bank account or buying tobacco/alcohol than voting for the President of the United States of America?

If you didn't understand the point of the hyperbole, I'm sorry it was lost on you. Rest assured that if you weren't in such a hurry to assume it was a "silly non-argument", you may have understood my point.

Anyway:

This whole nanny-state mentality is just silly. In this day and age, requiring a photo ID for something as important as voting seems like a no-brainer.

In what possible way does it make sense that there's more security involved in opening a bank account or buying tobacco/alcohol than voting for the President of the United States of America?

The argument is not against the photo ID but the manner in which it is being imposed, and the lack of appreciation for the additional hardship it may put on certain groups of potential voters. The purpose given for the IDs is to deter voter fraud, yet the voter fraud issue is predominant in absentee voting which the photo ID laws do not address.

Polls are open sufficient hours to allow shift workers to vote. There are options for transportation to and from voting centers. But the SC decision essentially is telling people they now have to pay an additional fee to be able to vote, which is a right, and not a purchased privilege.

My argument is that those states (or the federal government should this become national legislation) that require a photo ID should make arrangements to provide same at no expense, with proper identification being presented.

The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented.
...

"But the SC decision essentially is telling people they now have to pay an additional fee to be able to vote, which is a right, and not a purchased privilege."

The SC decision does not say this at all. The decision simply says that a law that furthers a legitimate state interest and which does not pose an undue burden on a citizen's right to vote is constitutional.

You're confusing what you think the law says with what the SC decision actually means.

Sanchek, imagine for a second you didn't have a car. Its the day, week, month before the election. How do you get to the place to get that ID in the first place? Thats the difficult part. And then, how do you get that proper documentation? A doctor's visit and a trip to the accountant to prove you are disabled and broke? Are those free?

These are very valid arguments there isn't an answer for. Ultimately it'll end up costing the states money to transport these people to get their IDs a few weeks before the election at the burden of the state. I don't see making people get an ID as a big deal since there is the potential of fraud and everyone having a government ID could eventually help with all of our identity theft problems as the IDs get more advanced ... but in the meantime it is an inconvenience and an added expense touted to protect voter fraud when the reality is its to make it harder to vote for typically democratic voters.

Oh please. The only people unduly burdened by this are comatose patients, and they have other problems to worry about.

And it's SHOCKING how much more burden people are willing to place on people when it's comes to the right to bear arms... a right that ranked just below the right to free speech. There's no age, sex, color qualifications for that in our Constitution, but yet we've saw the need to do just that over the years.

Once again you don't lower the bar to the least capable group of folks.

Raise the bar and then find ways to help those that can't reach it. All these excuses why folks can't get photo id's are just that.

Excuses....

unfortunately all the elderly in my life still drive and have a license. they scare me!

the statement about the bank account bit was spot on. how can you argue that it's more important to be required to present an ID for buying alcohol or opening a bank account than for voting for President? srsly, how?

Pretty simple really. disallow mail in voter registration. allow for reasonable doubt for ID. as in 4-3 items that point in favor of validity of who you are and then issue a photo voter ID at the time of registration. free of charge.
Disenfranchise overseas serving soldiers FTW? The ones that generally vote Republican?

;)

Sanchek, imagine for a second you didn't have a car. Its the day, week, month before the election. How do you get to the place to get that ID in the first place? Thats the difficult part. And then, how do you get that proper documentation? A doctor's visit and a trip to the accountant to prove you are disabled and broke? Are those free?
Come on. This is getting ridiculous.

If you can't afford bus fare and/or can't afford a $10 ID good for six years, you probably have an abundance of free time and can get it taken care of during said free time. This should not be an insurmountable obstacle for anyone who actually wants to vote.

We all have to budget our money, figure out how to get from point A to B, and generally not fail at life. If someone literally cannot find a way to procure a valid picture ID in 2008, they have much larger problems than voting.

The Indiana DMV even stated that they'd be open extended hours, to make sure everyone could get an ID before the primary.