Letters to the Editor
-
Very little, if any.
But, it makes a great campaign issue, especially when the DOJ is your own little political fiefdom that can charge your political opponents just before an election.
GOP- non-solutions to imaginary problems.
-
Can the "objectivity" Alex.
This is straight out poll taxing to depress Democratic voting blocks and everyone knows it. The Dissenting appeals court judge called it like it is. We are back at Plessy v Ferguson level deceit from the court. That the court can seriously keep blinders on to this degree bodes poorly for this country's future. STEVENS is usually good at looking at the obvious facts. Where was he on this one?
-
probably none
I read an article very similar to yours in Harper's a while back and was fairly shocked at the temerity of the Republicans on this issue (I know! Quel Surprise! ;)
Actually in Canada you don't even need to prove citizenship...you can show up at the polling station with your license and proof of residence and you can vote. I've never heard even a peep about voter fraud up here
cheers!
-
Lay off Stevens, he's trying to moderate the opinion
I have a feeling that Justice Stevens, someone you might think would be in the Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer camp, wrote the controlling opinion in this case to prevent a harsher precedent advocated by Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. He managed to peel off Roberts and Kennedy so that one could at least mount an "as applied" challenge to a voter ID law, meaning that such laws can be stricken if it's shown that the voter ID laws actually prevent somebody from voting. If Kennedy and Roberts joined Scalia, then the Supreme Court would have declared that voter ID laws pose minimal burdens, and it would be difficult to bring even an "as applied" challenge.
-
Voter fraud is not the point - it's stealing elections
This is standard Republican vote stealing - no different from shaving the voter rolls in Florida in 2000 - again the Supreme Court makes the call - this shows how important it is to keep McCain out of the White House - otherwise, the minority party will have a chokehold on our democracy for another generation - we can't afford any more Republican appointees to the supremes -
-
So what?
I'm not enough of a constitutional scholar to know how correct the SCOTUS was in allowing the states to make their own rules in this case. It seems unusual for the top court to take on a case of something that so clearly ain't broke and don't need fixin'.
So now, some states will have Voter ID laws, some states will not. Democracy will survive. When my grandfather was young, you didn't need a license to drive a car and when the requirement was established he pretty much thought that America The Land of the Free was all washed up.
-
It's only a problem where all elections are ties
And most of our national elections recently have been ties. If there is zero consensus on where the country should go then perhaps it matters less overall who gets to claim victory anyway. Dems won Congress 2 years ago. They might as well had themselves frozen with Walt Disney's head for all the good it did. If some Dem manages to scrape together a victory in Nov it will still mean that Congress and useless and deadlocked. Nothing will get done, 2010 will see a GOP victory in Congress leading to more angry insipid do-nothingism.
-
Indiana Voter ID
Who rationally believes that they can walk into a polling place without any identification and reasonably expect to vote? I am a huge democrat, but this seems to be a big deal about potentially disenfranchising someone, except no one has come forward and said "I was refused the privilege of voting" because I could not produce a valid picture ID, a utility bill, or something other valid piece of identification?
I think it is very reasonable to expect that you should be able to prove who you claim you are.
-
What's the big deal either way?
This is one issue I just can't get worked up about on either side. It's a law to fix a problem that doesn't really exist. But the "disenfranchisement" opponents cry about doesn't seem to really exist, either. They always cry about how the poor and elderly don't have photo ID, so they're not allowed to vote. But, just like the supporters can't find any widespread examples of fraud, opponents can never really find very many people who are disenfranchised by the ID requirement. It's a law to fix a problem that doesn't exist, that hurts people who don't seem to exist, either.
If you don't have your shit together enough to get a photo ID, you probably aren't going to have your shit together enough to show up and vote on election day, either...
If you're not living-on-the-street homeless, how can you get through daily life in America in 2008 without a photo ID? And if you are homeless, then you probably don't technically meet the residency requirements to be eligible to vote, anyway. The whole thing seems to me like a complete non-issue any way you come at it. We have MUCH bigger problems in Indiana than voter fraud and a dozen people who didn't get to vote because they had no photo ID.
-
Well, nothing else is working . . .
When you're desperate, you grab at all the straws.
Anyway, this is an issue where Salon readers and the grassroots movement can make a difference in. We can start a "Picture Me Voting" campaign to make sure everyone in Indiana, if not America, has a voter ID. And to make sure they understand the underlying reasons why they need one.
-
Move Along, Please
Nothing to see here folks.
-
STEVENS is usually my favorite justice.
I can see how he might have made a political move to keep this issue open. If he went with the liberal wing, the 5 right wingers could have overturned the poll tax precedent. Sometimes it is hard to trust STEVENS, but I know he is always right.
-
Skunkeye
Lots of people don't have driver's licenses. Lots of people used to have driver's licenses and then had them revoked and surrendered. Getting a non-driver's license isn't all that hard, but it is something you have get off your ass, scratch a ride from someone over the DMV then battle with them using your original birth certificate that's often disallowed anyway.