On April 28, the U.S. Supreme Court mostly upheld Indiana’s law requiring voters at the polls to show a photo Government-ID. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court, and his opinion was co-signed by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. His opinion is 21 pages long. See here for the opinion.
Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, saying the law is always constitutional, and his concurrence was signed by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Scalia wrote 6 pages.
Justice David Souter write a dissent, co-signed by Justice Ruth Breyer. which is 30 pages. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote his own dissent, which is 5 pages.
The conclusion reached by the Court as a whole is that the law may be unconstitutional as applied to a small number of voters who must incur cost in order to obtain the ID, but that since this case has no such voters as plaintiffs, it fails to reach that claim. Another lawsuit with that particular type of voter as a plaintiff may reach it in the future. Stevens’ decision says, “While it is true that obtaining a birth certificate carries with it a financial cost, the record does not provide even a rough estimate of how many indigent voters lack copies of their birth certificates. Supposition based on extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination in constitutional litigation.” (Footnote 20). This important footnote provides a guidepath for future litigants.
All of the decisions in this case (the court’s opinion, the concurrence, and the dissent) speak about the ballot access precedents. One encouraging sign is that Justice Scalia acknowledged the Storer v Brown test, that ballot access laws that are seldom used are unconstitutional. That test, created by the Court in 1974, frequently gets overlooked by lower courts, particularly courts in Georgia that close their eyes to the evidence that no minor party has ever managed to qualify a candidate for US House of Representatives. Having the test reiterated in a 2008 decision will help persuade lower courts that the test should be noted and used.
That’s nice it looks like Steve and Ruth got married.
How come election law has become so mysterious that 5 of the party hack Supremes can apparently NOT detect whether or not an election law on its face (alleged facial violations) does or does NOT violate any part of the U.S.A. Constitution ???
YES or NO. So very hard.
Same deal with *as-applied* alleged violations.
YES or NO. So very hard.
Any case without a majority opinion is basically useless to the lower courts and only adds more confusion — for later Supremes to play more games with.
Next election law case on the Supremes docket ???
Democracy NOW — including the NONPARTISAN election of the Supremes by ALL voters in the U.S.A. — to hopefully reduce the number of party hack MORON / senile Supremes.
Anybody have a link to the actual ruling, for reference purposes?
Never mind. It’s at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=07-21
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Looks like Stevens is actually following the Constitution for a change unlike his left-wing liberal hacks-Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer. Thank God for conservative justices who despise liberal judicial activism.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. Please seek help all you extremist liberals! Thank me very much!
I don’t understand all the fuzz about requiring photo ID at the polls, to ensure that the person showing up to vote is actually the person he/she claims to be. If we require photo ID for other transactions, shouldn’t we do the same for voting.
In Puerto Rico there has been a government issued voter ID since the 1980 election. It is provided free of charge to every registered voter, and it is replaced free of charge when a voter loses it, or when it becomes deteriorated. There have been 7 general elections and numerous other major electoral events, such as referendums, plebiscites, state party primaries and presidential primaries without there being any challenge to this requirement.
Juan Jose Nolla: In Puerto Rico … It is provided free of charge to every registered voter, and it is replaced free of charge when a voter loses it, or when it becomes deteriorated.
That is different from the Indiana law in an important way. The Indiana law requires that the voter spend money to get valid ID, and obtaining the ID is separate from the act of registering.
I thought I read what makes Indiana different from other states is that it does not charge. The argument that their requirement was really no different than a free voter registration card.
I HAVE TO SHOW ID TO CASH A CHECK SO WHATS SO BAD ABOUT IT FOR VOTING?
#7 and #8 Henry Dubb, you are correct – perhaps you read it in the actual decision, while Bob Richard was making it up. While most people will use their drivers license, which they pay a fee for, the legislature ordered the licensing bureau to issue photo IDs to any citizen over the age of 18 for free. There are also exceptions for people in nursing homes and those who refuse to be photographed due to religious reasons. Those who lose their ID or whose dog ate it thinking it was their homework will be able to vote a provisional ballot.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
another link to the opinions
Many poor people do not have government photo ID. That’s why there are check-cashing services in urban areas that do not require the customer to show a government photo ID. These check-cashing places always take a substantial cut of the check that they have just cashed.
This is simply the greatest news for libertarians of the year. It is a huge win for libertarian petitioners nationwide. We get pummelled on a daily basis by leftist scumbag petitioners who try to block us from gathering signatures for libertarian candidates and causes. Now they’ve suffered a serious set-back. Bet we’ll be seeing much less of the ACORN types trying to stop us now on the petitioning trail.
When I was working in extreme southern California in 2004, I witnessed massive voter fraud for the Democrats. They were unbelievably bold and audacious in their efforts. They’d threaten illegal immigrants by telling them they needed to register to vote and mark the Democrat box, or risk being reported into local Border Patrol authorities. This was particularly rampant in San Diego, Riverside, San Bernadino and Imperial Counties on the Border.
Another Dem trick is they’d set up at Wal-Marts on the border (Calexico and El Centro), and register visiting Mexican nationals to vote. (Mexicans who have a one-day pass card have mailing boxes in Calexico and often vote in US elections by mail.)
And yet another trick, they’d register US citizens to vote at these Wal-Marts, but they’d already have the Dem box filled in with a magic marker. So, it was impossible to register as anything but a Democrat. I knew people who tried to register Republican or Libertarian, and the Dem registrars literally ripped up the card in their faces and threw it in the trash. I also personally witnessed this on the local community college campus in El Centro.
California Democrats are brutal. They play rough. Hopefully, this Supreme Court ruling will cut down on the massive voter fraud they’ve been engaging in for years.
Juan Jose de Puerto Rico,
The problem with voter IDs is that Democrats can no longer engage in voter fraud, the kind they’ve been doing in California, Missouri, Illinois, South Florida and other States for years. That’s why there’s so much fuss.
You don’t see Libertarians or Republicans complaining about the Supreme Court ruling. Funny, the only ones complaining are the Democrat Party USA.
Wonder why?
The pro-Democratic groups are not going to just pack up their toys and go home. They’re not going to stop trying to block other parties’ and groups’ petitioning efforts. This decision gives them rhetorical support — and possibly legal support — in their efforts to do so, especially where the judges evaluating petitions are already on their side.
The problem with efforts to crack down on “voter fraud” is that Republicans commit fraud by trying to suppress the votes of the same demographic groups that Democrats try to coerce. So cracking down on one type of fraud bolsters the other. (There is also a fine line between fraud and sloppiness, on both sides.)
You would think libertarians would not be happy about a law that requires citizens to have all their papers in order before participating in a basic act of citizenship.
More and more felonies with SERIOUS punishment for ALL election law violations ??? — i.e. LIFE in jail — i.e. to make election law violations as serious as treason, murder, etc. — to discourage the ANTI-Democracy devil morons from Hell — i.e. the old time / New Age party hack ballot box stuffers and vote stealers.
Illegal persons claiming to be Electors
Illegal voting – by any illegal persons
Illegal counting of legal ballots,
etc.
ALL VERY MAJOR FELONIES —
Otherwise — see the ruins of many wrecked so-called *civilizations*.
Are the top communist Donkeys and the top fascist Elephants trying to take PERMANENT control of the U.S.A. regime by any means possible ??? Duh.
Nothing new in world history.
#10, Jim R.: the legislature ordered the licensing bureau to issue photo IDs to any citizen over the age of 18 for free.
To get the “free” photo ID you have to produce a birth certificate, passport, etc. — all of which cost money. This was recognized in Souter’s dissent.