Jeffrey Toobin on Indiana's Voter ID law: 'The real agenda was to help Republican.'
By John Amato Friday May 23, 2008 8:46pm
I've been all over the Indiana Voter suppression ruling by the Supreme Court ever since they started hearing the case. I call it the Preemptive doctrine on Voting Rights.
The Great Voter purge shall begin. The Indiana Voter ID case is the ultimate Republican tool to purge the rolls of voters that overwhelmingly will vote for a Democratic nominee. Indiana anti-voter Law produces first casualties: Indiana Nuns in their 80’s and 90’s I haven't watched Moyers yet because I need some time off this weekend like all of us do, but TP posted this clip:
Commenting on the decision on last night’s “Bill Moyers Journal,” legal scholar Jeffery Toobin explained that the “real agenda” behind voter ID laws is “to help Republicans”:
I thought it was a bad decision, but a predictable one because it was a very clear attempt by Republicans to stop Democrats from voting. I don’t think there’s any doubt about what the motivation was of that law. … The real agenda was to help Republican.
That says it all. I'm working with the ACLU to map out a strategy on this ruling and will keep you informed.
Steve wrote: What hath the Supreme Court wrought?
But in a painfully misguided ruling, the Supreme Court approved the Indiana measure anyway. We’re now seeing the predictable result — conservatives who want voter ID laws to help keep Democrats from the polls are ratcheting up their efforts.
Login or Register to post comments.
Just in time for the release of the movie "Rec0unt"
Republicans don't want Democrats to vote? This guy's a genius.
Well at least someone's saying it on actual television.
File under 'duh'
Someone said the other day that the Indiana Voter ID ruling doesn't affect us here in Virginia because we don't have to show a photo ID in order to vote. How uninformed can someone be? Republicans hold an 8-person majority in the House of Delegates and Democrats hold only a 2-person majority in the Senate (21-19). Should the Dems lose control of the Senate, the Republicans could and would require photo IDs in a heartbeat.
"The real agenda was to help Republican."
Ya think?
Legislating from the bench? Sons of bitches!!
I'm very bitter!!!!!! Have yoiu noticed?
I really hope that a Democratic congress will add 4-5 more justices to the Supreme court. Nine isn't enough, considering their work load. And I hope they consider impeachment for *a LOT* of the judges, including Scalia, appointed by this Administration.
Of course sittin' and a'hopin aren't enough. We (I) must keep on our Dem congresspeople's ass. They won't like it, but it is possible nowdays with the intertubes and all.
Register as a Republican and vote for Obama. Would that work?
No you don't say
the rethugs are hedging their bets they have diebold now they have this
I liked the way he talked about Obama knowing the Constitution and the history of the SCOTUS. It's another reason I favor Obama. Although he doesn't talk about it, I'd be willing to bet he's quite offended by the way this criminal administration has trampled all over the Constitution. The Dems better make a huge deal out of these Supreme Court appointments. It's a big big reason NOT to vote for McCain. It would be a HUGE setback for this country if any more conservative judges were appointed. To all you women who say you won't vote for Obama if HC doesn't get the nomination, if McCain gets elected, you can kiss your and your daughter's and grandaughter's reproductive rights goodbye. You can also forget about diversity, forget about employee rights, forget about the environment, forget about voting rights, basically forget about all rights we fought so hard for, because conservatives will always rule in favor of the rich and powerful. McCain has made it clear he will choose judges like Alito and Roberts. That's pretty frightening, especially considering these are life long appts.
hell weve had voter photo id for the last three elections , its nothing new! in indiana
Am I being too suspicious?
The majority Repug California Supreme Court has just ruled that the California Constitution allows for single sex marriage. Now, within a few days of the decision, there is a big petition drive to put a proposition to amend the state constitution on the November ballot.
Does anyone think that the decision might have been a means to drum up the conservative vote?
Nah, once on the bench they become a political. That's how Scalia was able to be even handed in Gore v. Bush, when he pulled an unheard of due process right of Bush to be president out of his ass.
"pro America", "pro freedom", "pro democracy" GOP is anything but.
I think it'd help if people spoke out more, or at least more effectively. Here's what one guy in Phoenix made with an overhead projector to greet Bush and McCain:
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.com/2008/05/by-time-bush-gets-to-phoenix....
America needs more overhead projectors...
I have said it before - these are social darwinists. Reason doesnt apply - its rhetoric - its about the win.
Trying to logically understand their actions or positions is futile - you may as well try to understand random numbers.
You need to understand only one thing - what defines a win to them - and how can you prevent them from getting it. Explanations are insufficient and irelivant.
They will discuss issues with you only to obfuscate, delay and misdirect.
The are about the win - you must make them lose.
Duh. Why so surprised?
It was stated so euphemistically, surgically even.
Paul C @ 16:
I agree whole heartedly. But please dont say Gore V Bush. It was Bush V Gore. Bush sued to stop the counting of votes on the theory that if votes were counted he - a man who had volutarily placed himself in the election process which presupposes that votes will be counted - would be harmed.
Bush V Gore
ken martin @ 13:
They won't need diebold with Obama's suuporters doing all the dirty work for them.
tyree @ 15:
I've always put down my Drivers License with my voter registration card when I go to vote. That way there's zero dispute.
L.A. Confidential @ 23:
what have obama supporters done now?
CoIntelPro against Repug DoucheBaggery @ 25:
LOL never mind oh man oh mighty.
NOW HEAR THIS: If the Democrats need a wedge issue to win the next election, THIS IS IT!
You don't have enough time to overturn the ruling, or to pass federal legislation to overrule it, but you CAN make voter disenfranchisement and voter caging the 2008 election issue! If you can't reverse it, you can at least gain some STREET CREDIT from it!
Sounds like a call to arms. How much would it take to get every Democrat(!) a valid picture ID?
L.A. Confidential @ 26:
CoIntel let's put it this way we here in our household are preparing-digging in for McCain. And not because we're voting for him we're not.
Thanks Obamanians. Thanks a lot.
Let me recommend a wonderful book -- "The Interpretation Game: How Judges and Lawyers Make the Law" by Robert Benson (a law professor at Loyola Marymount Law School of Los Angeles). Let me quote --
"The truth is, there is no such thing as 'just following the law." Every judge, every lawyer, every interpreter always makes the law, never finds it, when reading a legal text. And their personal views inescapably play a centrol role in the making. These facts are of profound importance in a democracy said to be base upon the 'rule of law' where lawyers and judges exercise enormous power. Yet publc discourse on the topic consists of little more than shallow shibboleths. Most people will grant that it makes a difference whether a liberal or conservative is appointed to the Supreme Court, but they naively assume that so long as the nominee is deemed 'well qualified' by professional peers, and so long as ideological extremists are excluded, we can rest in the assurance that, as John Roberts declared when he was nominated to be Chief Justiceof the United State, 'judges are like umpires. Judges don't make the rules. They apply them.' Pure flapdoodle, but the public, press and politicians fall for it."
I just wish someone would promote this book which lays bare the stupidity of the McCain and Bush's profession of support for "strick constructionists."
L.A. Confidential @ 29:
Don't give up. Clinton has offered a ray of hope. *bOrK*
They only opened up a full service license branch in Gary just recently. Gary just happens to be the fifth largest city in the state, 80% black, and heavily Democratic. No license, no vote.
http://www.nwitimes.com/articles/2007/10/27/news/lake_county/doc21e641ab...
I would like to think that the answer to this is for a court to find that, if a person cannot produce ID, then the state MUST issue one, on-the-spot.
Maybe pay for it out of the business tax.
Of course, I am only half serious...
what's especially frustrating about nonsense like voter ID laws is that even otherwise rational people, like my brother who i have always found to be reasonably rational, just cannot accept that not everyone who actually is a citizen can prove it to the satisfaction of "the authorities." what he, and others, fails to understand is that "the authorities" can be extraordinarily capricious in what is "acceptable" proof of citizenship.
This is despicable!
LAConfidential@2,
I've met quite a few "brothers" from your age bracket. You've been beaten down over the years to the point that you can only express negativity towards another "brother", hence your clear dislike for the "younger black guy", Obama. You once claimed to me that you "marched with Dr.King during the civil rights movement, yet you act like the kind of person who threw rocks and bottles at the protest marchers. Don't be afraid of the brother LA, He won't hurt you...he loves America too.
I literally sat in the room when the IN-ACLU told the Indiana Democratic party that they wouldn't present individuals who'd been harmed by the law. It was a fascinating discussion.
Also present was Doris Sadler, the County Clerk... who seemed unmoved by any of the arguments that day. In fact, the position of the other side has become that adopted by the SCOTUS majority: an "as applied" challenge is the same as "on its face."
The ICLU didn't have a chance, which is unfortunate for civil rights law.
What Democrat Party leftists have yet to explain is why so many people who support them don't have photo IDs.
After all, you need one to have a job, drive a car, cash a check, use a credit card, get on an airplane, buy alcohol and cigarettes, and carry out innumerable daily activities that are part of working and being a productive member of society.
Anyone want to explain why all these minorities who drive themselves to the polls don't have photo IDs?
Anyone want to explain why all these illegal immigrants that Democrats register to vote have jobs, but not photo IDs?
Anyone want to explain how all these senior citizens cashing their Social Security checks, which you cannot collect OR cash without a photo ID, are managing to do so?
North Dallas Thirty @ 38:
Spoken like a true right winger who pulls the "facts" out of his ass because right wing facts are shit. Find the Democrats who you say are registering illegal immigrants to vote and ask them.I`ve not heard of one case of voter fraud that has not been trumped up by some rabid Rethug prosecutor railroading vulnerable,elderly,minorities who are usually confused by our archaic voter registration laws.
Between this kind of shit, this bogus polling data, giving McCain any kind of lead over any democrat when these bastards conducting them are playing with words and simply passing millions of Americans over because they wont give the right answers to the stupid ass questions asked in them, and this national media that some of us live and pray buy, is going to be the death of this country.
It is so sad to say that there are some Americans, and you all know who the hell you are, that are just hell bent on foolishness and would rather suffer the same kind of fait or even worst and take all of us with you, then to do the right things in life, and oh how dame sad for this country that you all profess to love so dame much.
I have had a very good and decent life, but I am so worried about my kids who simply don't stand a chance in this hell and neither do any of yours, if the truth can be told, and it wont, because you will never allow it.
How very sad
paul,
i dont think there was anything insidious about the cal supremes ruling...the ballot measure had 1 mil signatures before the ruling
and we all need to be honest...
no matter if the dems control the wh and the congress....the wingnuts will have control of the supremes for a good long time
the idea that the current supremes are not an activist court is absurd
North Dallas Thirty:
Go get 'em, John. Let us know what you need us to do!
"Anyone want to explain why all these minorities who drive themselves to the polls don’t have photo IDs?"
Members of a minority group or any protected class of citizens (which includes the elderly who can be of ANY RACE) who can afford their own car or still have the reflexes and vision needed to drive do, indeed, have a photo ID. The ones who cannot afford a car or are unable to drive have to get a ride from a neighbor, use public transportation or rely on their church group for transport to the poll. They are the ones whose civil rights are being infringed and I can't believe you are so ignorant as to have to have that spelled out for you. That means you are just being obtuse.
I'm sure this really was done with the intent of hurting Democratic turnout, but I wonder how it's really going to affect things in the end. Don't forget that the largest group of people without IDs are not the poor but the elderly, who are generally more conservative. And maybe it'll push some people to get one, because frankly if you don't have a photo ID you're an idiot. You need one for so many minor things that to be stuck without one is foolish.
Judicial activism by any other name is still judicial activism. You know, Dubya, legislating from the bench. The first got you to your throne and now this decision is designed to keep the rest of you monkeys in power by the head apes. Is the beginning of planet of the apes?
Fastcloud @ 44,
An ignorant wingnut, shooting their big bazoo off and exposing their total lack of intelligence? Shocking! The fact that these clowns have no ability to think beyond what the GOP noise machine gives them - is par for the course.
My 87 year old Aunt has never driven a car in her life. In fact, many of my aunt's from that generation never had a driver's liscence. They are also die hard FDR democrats, and the GOP knows this.
Furthermore, to all of you corporate fascist wingnut lovers out there: these "minorities" that you always speak of with such contempt, are poor people simply trying to improve their lot in life, by providing starvation wage workers for the corporate fascist's you love to embrace. This allows investor's and CEO's to make billions off them, by exploiting their desperate situation.
Terrified laborers who work for next to nothing, have no rights, no redress, and no voice in the political process: the GOP wet dream.
Furthermore, you can place all of your xenophobic hatred at the doorstep of your big business heroes! If corporate america wasn't ILLEGALLY hiring them in the first place, they wouldn't be in this country.
LA is so close-minded that he can't understand why he claims anybody else but he is not. At least he claims to be Democratic. Bet, behind closed curtains he'll vote against Obama! And what he claims otherwise will be suspect.
I am amazed by both the story and the comments. If one takes the time to read the Supreme Court opinions, one will find that they said that NEITHER side presented any convincing evidence of voter disenfranchisement or voter fraud. Thus they decided on the basis of a state's right to ensure that votes were legitimate.
However, the court also added the caveat that if convincing evidence of voter disenfranchisement were found, then the court would revisit the case. This sounds fair and just to me.
L.A. Confidential @ 29:
That's right, Obama supporters are making people vote for McCain. It's so obvious ...
The decision causes a slppery slope.
To take up on the central point 38 tries to make: How is it that a voter ID law disproportionately affects Democrats exactly? Because Jeffery Toobin says so? Is it indeed a fact that a vast number of Democrats live out their daily lives without possessing identification? If so, why? How on earth do these people manage to get anything done? The elderly - wouldn't there tend to be as many old Republicans as Democrats? Minorities - is there some special privilege extended to minorities that allow them to navigate daily life without identification; why would they be made to feel intimidation (vs. in-your-face indignation) if asked to provide ID at the polls?
BTW Instead of calling me any of your favorite names, please just answer the questions.
Legislating from the bench? Sons of bitches!!
--------------
The law was passed by the legislature. The Supreme Court upheld it.
Judicial activism by any other name is still judicial activism. You know, Dubya, legislating from the bench.
-----------
The President legislates from the oval office. Executive orders.
There is nothing in The Constitution which prevents a state legislature from requiring identification to vote. This is not judicial activism.
Requiring identification is reasonable. Requiring 5 forms of identification which require a voter spending 150 dollars to procure, is unreasonable.
In the Florida election in 2000, military absentee ballots were accepted without proper identification. Democrats were concerned about the potential for cheating.
Proper identification is a legitimate issue.
To take up on the central point 38 tries to make: How is it that a voter ID law disproportionately affects Democrats exactly? Because Jeffery Toobin says so? Is it indeed a fact that a vast number of Democrats live out their daily lives without possessing identification? If so, why? How on earth do these people manage to get anything done? The elderly - wouldn’t there tend to be as many old Republicans as Democrats? Minorities - is there some special privilege extended to minorities that allow them to navigate daily life without identification; why would they be made to feel intimidation (vs. in-your-face indignation) if asked to provide ID at the polls?
The Republican party in this country has traditionally been the party of business. It only stands to reason then that elderly people of means tend to vote republican. Minorities and people of color skew democratic, since they are unlikely to vote against their own interests (poor whites seem to be the only rubes falling for that racket in any significant numbers).
don't take my word for it. Minorities, the poor, and especially elderly minority poor are a large constituency in the democratic party. Just check Karl Rove's hard drive if you don't believe me.
That a number of posters on the thread have a hard time getting their minds around the idea that there are people in this country who don't have photo ID is indicative of the fact that (a) they're too young to remember a time when this was not only not necessary, but the very idea that 'the government' would insist that you pay to put your picture on file was suspect. My first drivers licence did not have my picture on it. (b) they are so disconnected from the desparate reality of the poor in this country that they can't understand how a $100 fee for government ID would be a prohibitive expense.
The bottom line is (or should be) that voting is a right, enshrined in the constitution. It is not a privilige, like driving a car or renting a DVD. As an inaliable right of every citizen, the right to vote should not hinge on whether one does or does not drive a car, or on one's ability to pony up a hundred bucks for state-issued ID. That is a poll tax, and we've been down that road before. If the state is going to demand ID, then the state should supply it, free of charge. End of discussion.
This is much ado about nuttin.
This is feel good medicine for the Republicans, but since there is little voter fraud in this country they'll feel like they've stuck it to the Democrats. Let's get real. How many Americans don't have a photo ID? Even an out of date photo ID proves they are the individual holding the voter registration card.
Democrats are making too much out of what is really a non issue. And Republicans are making plenty of hay out of an issue that won't keep them in power.
The Republican party in this country has traditionally been the party of business. It only stands to reason then that elderly people of means tend to vote republican. Minorities and people of color skew democratic, since they are unlikely to vote against their own interests (poor whites seem to be the only rubes falling for that racket in any significant numbers).
------------
The government is a racket, so it seems that whichever party one votes for, one is voting for a racket of some sort.
How does one vote against ones own interests by voting a particular political party? The Clinton's are worth some 100 million dollars. By virture of their wealth, shouldn't they be voting republican?
Poor whites are rubes? Why? Because they don't think like you want them to?
Should the Clinton's or the Kennedy's think like republicans, just because they are wealthy? Would you call them rubes because they don't?
Personally I don't see what the problem is with showing ID. I live in Canada and in order to vote, people must come to the vting polls with some sort of photo identification. We never have trouble with this and even the people who do show up without it, we can say we've let them know through ads and mailings and flyers that we let them know a zillion different ways what was needed in order to cast a ballot. So if they show up saying they didn't know, we tell them it's their own fault at that point and tough luck.
If people can't go out and get some form of personal ID with a photo on it, even if it means leaving their TV set for a few hours and giving up a couple hours of CSI, then it's their own fault. You're not disenfranchising voters by asking for something like this. If poor people are the most affected, how is it not their fault for trying to find out what's needed with a simple phone call??!!
Perhaps John Doheny, who claims that ID is a $100 fee, can cite examples of it.
In his own home state of Louisiana, the average fee is $21, and people over the age of 60 pay nothing.
In California, the fee for an ID is $23 at full price; low-income people pay $7.
And in Indiana, where all this started, identification cards for voting are free.
Meanwhile, no one has explained how all these "working people" fail to have photo IDs -- especially since, under US law, you must present valid proof of identity, photo required on it, to be legally hired or to work.
In addition, for all these elderly people on Social Security, one, you cannot cash a Social Security check without proper photo identification, just like any other check, and two, you cannot legally collect Social Security in the first place without being able to prove your identity.
So how is it that all these people "fail" to have photo IDs?
the GOP talk radio monopoly, that has to be broken up before America can have any real democracy or bipartisanship, has been essential in selling the anti immigration and racist crap that republicans use to rationalize these Orwellian ID laws. and their real purpose is to help the GOP steal more elections.
How does one vote against ones own interests by voting a particular political party? The Clinton’s are worth some 100 million dollars. By virture of their wealth, shouldn’t they be voting republican?
Statistically yes, they should. But a statistical preference for a particular party does not mean that every single member of a particular demographic group behaves exactly the same. For instance with most people I'd hesitate to insult their intellgence by pointing out the bleeding obvious but in your case it seems to be necessary.
Poor whites are rubes? Why? Because they don’t think like you want them to?
No, because in voting for neoconservative candidates they vote against their own self-interest, as with the Bush 'tax-cuts' and inhereitance tax repeal measures, which overwhelmingly favor the wealthly. Of course not all poor whites fall into this catagory, but that's obvious. Right?
Should the Clinton’s or the Kennedy’s think like republicans, just because they are wealthy? Then again, maybe it's not obvious to you. This is hands down the dumbest agument I've read in at least a week.
My point contiues to be:
The bottom line is (or should be) that voting is a right, enshrined in the constitution. It is not a privilige, like driving a car or renting a DVD. As an inaliable right of every citizen, the right to vote should not hinge on whether one does or does not drive a car, or on one’s ability to pony up a hundred bucks for state-issued ID. That is a poll tax, and we’ve been down that road before. If the state is going to demand ID, then the state should supply it, free of charge. End of discussion.
The problem is that some people (like our lunkheaded Canadian friend a couple of comments back) cannot conceive that not everyone's circumstances are the same as theirs, that if you're old, infirm, crippled or any number of other extenuating circumstances, it may be just difficult enough to meet the ID requiremnts that you just may stay at home.
Democracies need to make it easier for people to vote, not harder. The 'voting fraud' issue is a red herring and easily dealt with without further disenfranchising people who are already partially shut out of the process.
Perhaps John Doheny, who claims that ID is a $100 fee, can cite examples of it.
Um, the video at the top of this article?
And in Indiana, where all this started, identification cards for voting are free.
Terrific. That's as is should be. And, provided that every state that demands voter identification does this, and obtaining ID is hassle-free and accessible to all voters, I'm fine with it.
My original point still stands though. government should not be in the business of disenfranchisement, particularly when voter turnout in many elections is less than 50%, lower than any other western democracy. And all this uproar still begs the question, why is this happening? A recent 1.4 million dollar investigation turned up a grand total of 24 cases of 'voter fraud,' only 8 of which involved actual fraudulent votes (the others involved things like people voting in the wrong precincts, or failing to put their names on the envelopes of absentee ballots they's mailed for disabled voters.)
If the problem is essentially nonexistant, why the 'solution'?
Login or Register to post comments.