Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

USSC upholds voter ID law

The Supreme Court has handed down a decision upholding an Indiana law that states voters must provide ID when voting much to the chagrin of Democrats:

The Supreme Court ruled today that states may require voters to present photo identification before casting ballots, upholding a Republican-backed measure that proponents say combats voter fraud and opponents believe discourages voter participation.

The court ruled 6-3 that the requirements enacted by Indiana's legislature were not enough of a burden to invoke constitutional protections. Because the state's law is generally regarded as the nation's strictest, the ruling bodes well for other states that have required photo ID.

"The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

Three conservative justices -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- agreed with the outcome but would have made it even more difficult for voters in states with photo-identification laws to challenge them.

Three liberal justices -- David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer -- dissented.

The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was the most sharply partisan case the court has considered since its ruling in Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election.

States with Republican-majority legislatures are pushing similar laws, saying they are a necessary and common-sense way to combat voter fraud and are widely supported by the public.

Democrats say the laws do not address the most prevalent forms of fraud, such as absentee ballots, but discourage or even disenfranchise people least likely to have driver's licenses or passports: the poor, elderly, disabled and urban dwellers -- who are most likely to vote Democratic.

For the record, it is the law that anyone over the age of eighteen must have a form of identification on them at all times. You have to be eighteen to vote, as well, so I fail to see where the Democrats have an argument. Those arguing before the court against the law -- claiming it equates to a poll-tax -- were shot down. Allah takes note of the fact that Justice Stevens shot down that argument succinctly.

Many states already demand that voters present a form of ID before voting. The Arizona Secretary of State's website has this page to tell voters what is acceptable as a form of identification, and it makes it very clear that to vote, you must present ID. This does help put an end to voter fraud despite the arguments from the Democrats. Granted, they do have a point when it comes to other avenues in voting, such as absentee ballots, but given the fact that places like Chicago are notorious for the dead rising on election day to participate (Zombies have rights, too, right?) this helps curb such fraud at the polls.

Kudos to the Supreme Court for standing up for what is right and proper, and not buying into the farcical argument that having to present ID equates to some sort of convoluted poll tax.

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home