Hey Voter, Show Me Your ID!

by Ryan on April 28, 2008

in Judicial Watch,Politics

The Roberts Court ruled today that Indiana’s Voter ID law is constitutional in a 6-3 decision by amply justifying that IDs  serve “the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” according to the majority.

I’ll let you guess which three were in the minority…

Give up? 

Stephen “International Law” Breyer, Ruth “Biddy” Ginsburg, and David “Don’t Tax My View“ Souter, of course!

I totally agree with this decision.  Unlike Indiana, New Jersey does not require photo IDs at the polling station.  Yet, when I do vote I always make sure to take out my ID and politely ask a loud question, “Do you need to see my ID?” so that everyone can hear.  I get kudos every time.  The Decision does not make states require ID verification, but it allows them to choose.  I guess this is one “pro-choice” decision the Libs won’t like!

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz April 29, 2008 at 6:53 pm

Looking at it outside of my own political leanings which would be, ‘hey they are more likely to be Dem voters than Rep, so who cares’, there is an issue that does need to be addressed here.

From my read of the legislation, and the reality in Indiana, the people most neagatively effected are potential Dem voters. The demographic supports it overwhelmingly.

Now I know they can make a statement of poverty to enable them to get state photo ID without or at lower cost, but who wants to admit to being skint.

Now, the Supreme’s were right in that it is not unconstitutional and Indiana had the right to pass the legislation, HOWEVER a more realistic law would have mandated a range of photo id’s as being acceptable. The reality will be that a good number will find the process too difficult or humiliating and will not vote, giving Obama Clinton the excuse to claim it was robbed. We are talking the bottom of the socio-economic barrel, but they do have the same right to vote.

Here in Aus where voting is compulsory – even for local council, you walk up and give your name and address and that’s it I’ve offered my photo driver’s licence on numerous occasions and been dismissed with a wave very time. Our Labor party(Dems on acid) had a slogan ‘vote early and often’ if you get the drift, so I’m a supporter of photo ID, though of any type that clearly identifies the voter.


Mike April 29, 2008 at 9:25 pm

You raise a really good point Oz that many Americans, and sadly some Supreme Court Justices, don’t understand. The fact that a law represents good or policy rarely has any bearing on its Constitutionality. (an exception would be the 4th Amend. prohibition on unreasonable searches).

Maybe you’re right that Indiana should have offered a wider range of acceptable ID, though the state offered to give out acceptable IDs for free. Policy wise, the bottom line is that people should have to prove that they are who they say they are when they try to vote. Otherwise, all of our votes are diluted.

What troubles me here is that although the Constitution does not address this issue, THREE Supreme Court Justices pretended it did, just so their ideological brethren could cheat on election day.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: