Now
Fair
73.0°
High
87°
Low
72°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Politics
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Supreme Court will decide constitutionality of voter ID law

Comments 9 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

By MARK SHERMAN / The Associated Press

Tuesday, Sep 25, 2007 - 09:40:28 am CDT

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether voter identification laws unfairly deter poor and minority Americans from voting, stepping into a contentious partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.

The justices will hear arguments early next year in a challenge to an Indiana law that requires voters to present photo ID before casting their ballots. The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.

The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana.

Story Photo

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. In June, the Georgia Supreme Court threw out a challenge to that state’s voter ID law but sidestepped a decision on whether the requirement was constitutional.

The Indiana law enacted in 2005 was upheld by a federal judge and by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Before the law’s passage, an Indiana voter had only to sign a poll book at the polling place, where a photo copy of the voter’s signature was kept on file for comparison.

“The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes,” Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, “Let’s not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic.”

The voter ID challenge was among 17 new cases accepted by the court in advance of the start of its new term on Monday.

The cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Austin wrote on September 25, 2007 11:23 am:
" So if I choose to not own a car and therefore do not have a driver's license and do not want to get a state issued ID, I am not allowed to vote? I have heard of this before it was called Poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses. Just so black people could not vote. This clearly violates section 5 of the Voting rights Act of 1965 AKA "the shield" by imposing new hurdles for people to exercise their franchisement. And I dare someone to take away my right to vote, it is my right and I chose to exercise it, with or without a stupid ID "
Ryan wrote on September 25, 2007 2:21 pm:
" Why is it that the Republican party always seems to want the fewest people possible to vote? Or to keep people from voting? Why, that's almost the definition of... undemocratic. "
Ben wrote on September 25, 2007 2:56 pm:
" Hopefully the court rules in favor. Liberals have argued against this in the past saying "it's unfair to minorities and the poor." They've been the ones out there committing acts of voter fraud for decades because laws like this have been struck down by liberal courts. Anyone remember Chicago with Daly as mayor and the dead were voting? Would never have happened if safeguards like this were in place. "
Late O'Day wrote on September 25, 2007 3:14 pm:
" This is GOP smoke-n-mirrors. Instead of examining GENUINE threats to voting integrity, they fob off this side-issue. Frankly, I find it very difficult to get worked up over an phony vote here and there, when a flick of a switch on a Diebold machine can flip a hundred-thousand+ at once. Or, using caging lists, they can wipe away a ton of legitimate minority votes without anyone even suspecting. When they start demanding sane audit trails on electronic machines, then we can talk about their puny side issue. "
Brian wrote on September 25, 2007 3:19 pm:
" If providing some sort of I.D. to vote would help prevent voter fraud, I'm all for it. In the November 2004, Sarpy county officials were amazed that there were more votes than voters in an election in at least one ward. It appeared votes were counted twice by the voting machines produced by Omaha's very own ES&S voting machines. Chuck Hagel at one time was partial owner and CEO of ES&S. California has recently banned ES&S machines because ES&S would not provide source code that would prove their legitimacy. It's not too hard to figure out why. Meanwhile, in Ohio, some key officials have been convicted of election fraud. 'It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes' "
Zoomie wrote on September 25, 2007 3:22 pm:
" The GA law originally mandated you pay $20 per ID, and could only get them at 35 designated locations (in a state with more than 90 counties). Originally, there wasn't a single location within Atlanta where you could get the ID (you had to travel 30miles NW to the suburbs to obtain an ID). Any bets who was the target of the law? And I LOVE Posner's logic in upholding the ID law: he literally said its better to prevent honest, legal voters from voting, than to let other voters think that MAYBE their votes were being cancelled out by fraudulent votes. Even the GOP GA Sec of State admitted she couldn't find a single case of vote fraud in the previous 30yrs! In fact, vote fraud is a phoney issue the GOP trot out to justify passing laws to prevent the poor and minorities from voting! 20-30yrs ago, even Republicans called this "racism". Now, its normal GOP politics! "
To Austin: wrote on September 26, 2007 3:47 pm:
" Please...this has nothing to do with race; it's designed to prevent voter fraud...period. "
JPB wrote on September 26, 2007 3:57 pm:
" If you look at the numbers, a high percentage of poor/ minority voters don't vote; not because of disenfranchisement but because of voter apathy and an unwillingness to participate in the political process. To suggest having a voter ID is some kind of conspiracy is disingenuous. Less than 50% of American voters vote in presidential elections. Voter ID's will not cause that percentage to radically increase...in any elections. "
Zoomie wrote on September 26, 2007 9:53 pm:
" To pretend these laws are anything EXCEPT designed to prevent the poor and minorities from voting is a case of purposeful ignorance! To Austin, you say the law is ONLY to stop voter fraud...what voter fraud??? The Repuglican official with all records admitted there is NO fraud, and hasn't been in decades! Nor in Indiana. Nor in South Dakota. In fact, Bush's DOJ (dispite making it a major issue for 6yrs) could only document a few dozen cases of people voting illegally over 6yrs, and almost all of those were innocent errors (some not even the fault of the people involved)! These laws are ONLY for the purpose of keeping people who will most likely vote Democratic from voting! And I guess JPB literally missed the millions of Blacks and Hispanics who voted in 2000 and 2004 (and if they don't vote, why have the GOP been falling all over themselves for years to attact Hispanic voters, the FASTEST growing group of voters in America these days)... "

Ads by Yahoo!

Legislature Coverage