Supreme Court Upholds Photo ID Law For Voters In Indiana

I've talked about this case at length with Rachel Maddow and anyone else that would listen, So has the ACLU, Digby and many others. Let's see what imp

I've talked about this case at length with Rachel Maddow and anyone else that would listen, So has the ACLU, Digby and many others. Let's see what impact it has on Indiana's Democratic Primary. Keep an eye out, but it will really hurt big time in the general election. That was the point of this case and the Supreme Court once again shows its face as nothing but a purely partisan organization.

The Great Voter purge shall begin....

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. n a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats andcivil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush mirrored.

And a very important point:

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements.

via the Scotus Blog:Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants

Here's the Scotus opinion pdf.

This Dissent by EVANS is very good.

EVANS, Circuit Judge, dissenting. Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic. We should subject this law to strict scrutiny--or at least, in the wake of Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, (1992), something akin to "strict scrutiny light"--and strike it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote...read on


↓ Story continues below ↓

Here’s the face of the Voter ID case in Indiana: “Preemptive doctrine” on voting rights

Supreme Court looks to be 5-4 to uphold Voting ID rules and purge the voting rolls…

About John Amato

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.