| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Supreme Court upholds voter ID laws |
| 2008-04-28 |
| 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 More here and here. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #11 Further, Bush has done little to expose this voting fraud. Why do you think all those AGs were fired at Justice? Could it be, when you look in to them, it was an issue that wasn't given priority by those offices. Oh, and not to pop anyone's celebratory balloons, this only applies to states that want to use photo IDs. This ruling doesn't require photo IDs be adopted by states currently not employing them. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-04-28 20:43 |
| #10 We have photo id requirements here in Colorado, and have had since at least the early 1980's. We also require every person who submits an absentee ballot have it certified by someone who has to see a photo id. Usually it's a notary public. In the military, it was the voting officer. My bank offers free notary service for customers. Most do. Most county clerk's offices will notarize absentee ballots for free, also. Failure to have absentee ballots verified is an open door for fraud and abuse. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2008-04-28 17:46 |
| #9 The absentee ballot is too easy to defraud. A good example was given by Iblis. Get rid of it and have an extended voting period in person with ID and fingerprint so the infirm, those on vacation can vote. Those overseas vote at the embassy or bases. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-04-28 15:58 |
| #8 Woozle, nice try. I recall Bush nominating one Harriet Miers, but we went kicking and screeming until he found a real judge. Further, Bush has done little to expose this voting fraud. After 7 years with the bully pulpet, he should have fixed all this, but little has been started and much less finished to guarantee fair elections. Bush has failed to address numerous problems here. He is more of a do nothing president, more like (gasp) Clinton. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2008-04-28 14:49 |
| #7 End the secret ballot. I'm afraid my wife would beat me up if she found out about some of my votes. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2008-04-28 13:40 |
| #6 This is nice, but retail vote fraud has already moved on. Photo IDs don't prevent fraud on absentee ballots, for example. Here in California we are voting nearly 50% absentee. Do we have fraud? A friend of mine is married to a women of Mexican heritage. Every election she routinely gets 6-8 absentee ballots in the mail. The come in her married name, maiden name, with spelling variations, etc. These are not requests for an absentee ballot, but the actual ballot itself. The kicker is that she has never requested an absentee ballot. These come unsolicited. Someone else has filled out the forms and forged her signature. Personally, I think the only answer to fraud is transparency. End the secret ballot. Post everything to the Internet, where the results can be examined, audited, confirmed, challenged, etc by anyone. If we lived in Cuba or Venezuela this might pose a problem, but not here. Your donations are already public knowledge and posted on the Internet. And the upside would be that fraud would end overnight. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-04-28 12:49 |
| #5 I've never needed an ID here in Pennsylvania. I just have to be able to produce a signature similar to the one on file. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2008-04-28 12:41 |
| #4 Pay attention. This is the one thing positive Bush has done. Kept the SCOTUS as a functioning , logical entity. Thank God for the reprieve. The next Prez could swing it again, as likely three appointments will open during the next four years. Even if John Boy McClain gets in, will he do right by the conservatives ? |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2700 2008-04-28 12:40 |
| #3 You kn ow this is the law in just about every democracy I know about. Anyone know one that allows voting without an ID? |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2008-04-28 12:38 |
| #2 There goes the dems fairness in fraud platform. |
| Posted by: Muggsy Gling 2008-04-28 12:31 |
| #1 I remember reading some of the leftie blogs (prior to my New Years resolution) when this was hot: lots of lefties were waxing prolific about how this would hurt the poor, minorities and the elderly. To which I posed a question: "what percentage of the poor, minorities or elderly lack a state-issued photo ID?" Good thing I ducked. Thing is, they can't answer the question. I don't know the precise answer either, but it's my experience, as an inner-city physician, that most everyone has a photo ID. You either have a drivers license or a state ID so as to cash a check, etc. Some elderly in the city have a transit authority photo ID so that they can get the bargain rate for the busses and trains. A photo ID is the first good step to stop fraud. That's why banks and stores ask for one when you write a check. It's why the DMV issues you one to drive. Any simpleton knows this. The whole issue, and we know, and the Kos Kiddies know it, is that a photo ID makes retail vote fraud more difficult, and retail (e.g., at the precinct station) fraud is what the inner-city Democrats excel at. You can't snow the election judges as to your identity if the photo doesn't match. Currently in Chicago you just need the city-issued 'voter ID' card -- a postcard -- to vote. You could print a hundred of those, go to a hundred precincts, and vote as you wish. Require a photo ID and that stops immediately. This is serious good news. Now the states have to follow through and get the laws passed to require a photo ID in every election at every level at every precinct. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-04-28 12:31 |