Supreme Court, States can demand photo ID before Voting

by Albert Milliron | April 28, 2008 at 01:51 pm

982 views | 26 Recommendations | 7 comments

Supreme Court: States can demand photo ID before Voting

Todays Supreme Court Decision has been a polarizing issue between Republicans, who believe that a photo identification is a basic document used in most financial transactions in America today, will ultimatly reduce voter fraud, and Democrats, who believe that the poor and old members of the electorate will not be able to vote thus disenfranchising voters who are typically Democrat.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reed and Spreaker Pelosi came out in opposition to the High Courts decision.

"The Court's decision today places obstacles to the fundamental rights of American citizens - especially the poor, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities - to participate in the electoral process," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. "Requiring American citizens pay for underlying documents needed for an identification card and travel to distant motor vehicle locations for processing hinders - and diminishes - their right to vote."

Hillary Clinton is against this decision as well. She has introduced the Count Every Vote Act which allows for same-day registration and allows voters who don't have ID to vote. She says that requiring ID is oppressive

Read the Descison here

07-21 Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (4/28/08) [4/28/2008] (398k)

The Lead Opinion writen by Justice Stevens, The Dissenting Opinion written by Justice Breyer

Writing the court's lead opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said the risk of voter fraud is ``real'' and that fraud ``could affect the outcome of a close election.'' States, he said, have a ``valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.''

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and Stephen Breyer dissented. Writing for himself and Ginsburg, Souter said the law ``imposes an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old.''

Here is what the Associated Press is Reporting

WASHINGTON (AP) - States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court's 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved.

The ruling means the ID requirement will be in effect for next week's presidential primary in Indiana, where a significant number of new voters are expected to turn out for the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The results could say something about the effect of the law, either because a large number of voters will lack identification and be forced to cast provisional ballots or because the number turns out to be small.

Supporters of the law say it's all about preventing fraud.

States who request Photo Identification to Vote, States who require ID (non Photo) to vote

Table 1: State Requirements for Voter Identification

States That Request Photo ID
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Indiana
Louisiana
Michigan
South Dakota

States that Require ID (photo not required)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Kentucky
Missouri
Montana
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Virginia
Washington

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Sign In or Join to post comments

theunderminer

at 14:25 on April 28th, 2008

Is it really a big deal to have to get photo ID in order to vote?

Albert Milliron

at 15:39 on April 28th, 2008

I think the main complaint is about older folks who don't have documents have trouble getting a photo id. My understanding is that there is provisions to help the poor and old to obtain documents free or at a reduced cost. Some elderly were born at home and don't have birth documents but again there is provisions to help them. This is where the family members or faith based and community services can help.

BigT

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 15:21 on April 28th, 2008

This is going to be a big story for the next couple of days and then whenever there is an election. To me, this just makes sense - states should be able to make their own laws about voting.

Albert Milliron

at 15:34 on April 28th, 2008

Thanks for the GS big-T. The response has been quick from leading Democrats. Sen Reid said today, "this isn't over" referring to this. It was the democrats who brought this suit. They asked the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this issue. It was a 6-3 decision meaning that some of the Liberal judges sided with the conservative Judges. In fact the leading opinion came from a usual liberal. What lost this case was they lawyers did not bring any evidence that anyone was disenfranchised by the law. You need to present evidence that there is a victim.

Rachel Nixon

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 15:43 on April 28th, 2008

politisite, I like this story. I think so long as provisions are made for the poor and elderly to gain easy access to these documents, the measure will help prevent fraud.

In any case, the US has stringent measures in place in identifying those who wish to cross its borders, so it seems reasonable to apply the same standards to its own citizens, in my opinion.

fwinstead

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 18:32 on April 28th, 2008

politisite, people need to know their voting rights and restrictions.

Albert Milliron

at 19:04 on April 28th, 2008

Unfourtunatly for Americans it all depends on where your live. So the best place to check is with your States board of elections. I have voted in five states during my lifetime, Alaska, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey and South Carolina. All were differant.