Read time: 2 minutes

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 on

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…

Can you help us out?

For 16 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit. We work 7 days a week, 16 hours a day for our labor of love, but with rising hosting and associated costs, we need your help! Could you donate $21 for 2021? Please consider a one-time or recurring donation of whatever amount you can spare, or consider subscribing for an ad-free experience. It will be greatly appreciated and help us continue our mission of exposing the real FAKE NEWS!

More C&L Coverage


New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team