Breaking: SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to Voter ID Law
The Supreme Court once again wades into the choppy waters of election law. Yeah, you know you love it.
From SCOTUSblog:
The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may cast a ballot. Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge – and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters. Three Justices dissented.The decision, in the case of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and a companion case, was the only ruling of the day. The Court also issued new orders, but granted review of no new cases….
Here is Lyle Denniston’s take:
The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters.
(But not those six-figure-earning, Ivy-League-educated Obama types, of course. They have multiple forms of ID, including passports, which they use for ecotourism visits to Costa Rica.)
Later today — there’s nothing up now except a link to the opinion — check out Election Law Blog, for the analysis of election-law guru Rick Hasen.
Update: Rick Hasen’s write-up appears here. Professor Hasen predicts:
It will encourage further litigation, because it relegates challenges to laws imposing onerous burdens on a small group of voters to “as applied” challenges, but those challenges will be difficult to win. The lack of a majority opinion, moreover, injects some uncertainty into the appropriate standard for reviewing other challenges to onerous election laws.
Breaking News: Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law [Election Law Blog]
Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants [SCOTUSblog]
(31) 
Comments
First... to say this is a big win for Republicans
Second, to wonder what the hell this has to do with this blog?
um, this is 2008, who doesn't have an ID - oh, wait those that are "undocumented" don't have an ID.
Lat, you should have cross referenced the word "facial" with Kash's post on the same topic.
Who cares? Let's hear about layoffs.
Ok, I admit it - I think this is a great ruling. It seems like an ID requirement is a minor requirement to make sure that a person is entitled to vote at a particular polling place.
Other than the democrats losing a few of their voters, some of whom were likely not entitled to vote anyway, can someone explain to me why this requirement is so onerous, even for poor people?
Is it really that tough for a LEGAL poor person to get either a driver's license or a government ID? If groups are picking up old geezers at the nursing home and taking them to the polling place, they can just take all the same people to the DMV to get non-driving government IDs, right?
What does Lyle's statement that "the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters." have to do with "those six-figure-earning, Ivy-League-educated Obama types"?
11:48: it was a joke. take a chill pill.
so, in other words, its now legal to fight voter fraud. wonderful.
now, if we could just insure the voting machines aren't rigged, we might have ourselves a democracy here.
12:28 = conspiracy theorist
Lat: love the ecotourism in Costa Rica reference out of nowhere.
That said, the law itself probably won't do much. There are ridiculously few reported cases of voter impersonation fraud in the US. We're talking about 100 nationally or something. Meanwhile, something like 10 million American voters don't have photo IDs--odd, yes. But unless the state provides these people with state photo IDs, the law operates as a poll tax on them.
The real problems with voting fraud are in registering to vote, and updating the voter rolls--to keep felons and dead people off. Or to crack down on poll worker fraud--like stuffing ballot boxes, or manipulating electronic voting machines. The Indiana law does nothing for those much more prevalent types of fraud.
All that said, I do agree that the law should probably be constitutional. The laws, however, are just bad policy.
Why would I be surprised that GOP members love this law? My best GOP-friend once said "I don't know why my vote shouldn't count more than some guy who can't even read and doesn't have a job."
Then I punched him in the stomach.
2:05: fight the power, brother, even if it means making up propaganda.
"Then I punched him in the stomach"
probably more like a slap.
2:25--
You're totally right. I made up the best friend part. I actually hate that m*therf*cker.
What he said, sadly, is true.
2:05
2:05,
Outside of a punch to the stomach, can you explain why that's not a pretty good argument?
How about this (aside from the more obvious thoughts on democracy and suchlike):
My grandmother couldn't read English and she never had a paid job (aside from raising my mom and her 3 brothers and 2 sisters). But she was smart as sh*t and had really good opinions and probably could see her way through a lot of BS to make a good choice about who would best represent her interests.
Your pal,
2 aught 5
This is a big win for Republicans, primarily for the reason that Democrats and their allied interest groups have engaged in widespread and organized election fraud in recent years. Google the phrase "ACORN election fraud" to find a few of the more egregious cases. While the ACORN cases may be egregious, they are certainly not isolated. Note also that the ACORN cases occured in at least three different states and that these were the rare cases were ACORN got caught -- most of their crimes were never reported.
but did you grandmother have a picture ID?
why is it that voter fraud only seems to happen when democrats vote"?
unless 2 aught 5 is adopted, Grandma doesn't appear to have passed on any of that wisdom to her later generations
I've found that words like "obvious" and "clear" are often used as shorthand for "I don't have a good argument." And you'll forgive me if I rather doubt that your illiterate grandmother had well-reasoned views on issues such as climate policy, economic regulation, or global trade, to name but a few.
By your reasoning, 4:25, pretty much the entire current electorate would be eliminated from the franchise. Shall we bring back the Star Chamber as well?
If there were a way to limit voting rights to the genuinely qualified without virtually guaranteeing that the qualification scheme would quickly be usurped by the dominant party to exclude all opposition, I'd be all for it. But in the absence of any such workable plan, I suppose 2:05's grandmother, as well as the 70% or so of Americans lacking a college degree, still get to vote. And thus we have candidates like GWB and HRC.
Right, which brings us right back to Churchill's quote on democracy.
Hey, angry oligarchist, wanna make out?
4:02 - " But she was smart as sh*t and had really good opinions and probably could see her way through a lot of BS to make a good choice about who would best represent her interests."
Did you granny also sign up for a subprime ARM and later claim she was duped and had a god given right to be allowed to stay in the house whether she could pay for it or not?
If we're going to have poll tax why not make it more expensive? If we're going to openly discriminate against the poor, let's at least do a good job of it.
My mother always said, give the poor the vote, and soon they'll be asking for ponies. Do you want to explain to Madison why there's a shortage of ponies? I thought so.
6:46 - keep trying. Resurecting the cry of "poll tax" doesn't make it one, for the sake of argument let's say it is, which it isn't.
All of these "ID-less" individuals are getting an extra government hand-out in the coming months. I believe it will arrive aroun the same time that my taxable tax rebate arrives. let them use the money to get a picture ID.
Given that you are required to show some form of ID to receive benefits from most government programs, I find it difficult to believe that all of these people don't have any.
IDs cost money and time. If you're dirt poor, you can't take off work to go get one. But this law will certainly help nip that nonexistent voter fraud problem in the bud. How many cases have there been in Indiana? Oh yeah, zero.
"smart as sh*t and had really good opinions"
Faint praise if I've ever heard it.