Report on Supreme Court opinion on Voter ID law.
Have fun. 
Waitaminnit – is it free?
Government IDs are free?
They aren’t free in Illinois at least.
Guess they can be free:
Here is the decision, with all the opinions.
Note the fractures… :eek:
I have challenged proponents of voter-ID laws countless times on this Board to present some proof that voter fraud (that is, persons casting ballots illegally, as distinct from election fraud, i.e., somebody rigging the results) is even really a problem. To date, none has. A 2006 study commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission concluded there is very little evidence of voter fraud around the nation; the EAC altered the report prior to publication and gagged the author from disclosing the original, but she did so anyway. See this thread. Can anyone seriously doubt that the real purpose of these statutes is the suppression of legitimate but low-income voters?
I’m not sure what you mean by have fun but I was struck by:
"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. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification."
While the ruling cited no historicial evidence of inconvenience to support its finding, why did it not consider no historical evidence of in-person voter fraud? Why pass a law to thwart something that is not even proven to be occurring unless you have something more nefarious in mind.
The timing of the decision, whether deliberate on not, raises issues for me. I eagerly await reports in the next few weeks of those who won’t be able to vote because they don’t have time to get an ID, or those who can’t pay being hassled about whether they have the ID to get free ones or whether they’re told they don’t qualify.
Sidenote: If an Indiania citizen applies for the ID and is awaiting its arrival in the mail, I wonder will the paid receipt etc. be sufficient to allow them to vote.
You mean like the several hundred votes cast for Loretta Sanchez in California?
The question, to me, is “Do we want people who are unwilling to overcome the minor hurdle of having proper identification to have a say in our political process?”
I realize that it’s supposed to be universal suffrage, etc… but really, if someone can’t be bothered (and you can’t honestly tell me that someone can’t afford $13 every 6 years) to get a driver’s license or ID card, then why should I be enthusiastic about their having any say whatsoever in things that might affect me or the ones I love?
It scares the shit out of me that people without the gumption/drive/presence of mind/etc… to get a damn ID card can actually have a say, however small, in important things.
I have, but you tend to look at my evidence and handwave it away.
In particular, this should cut down on double voting when combined with other reforms.
It does discuss this, in footnotes 11-12 and the accompanying text. It is, however, laughably weak. These cite…wait for this…Boss Tweed! “Sure, there’s historical evidence of voter fraud, from 1868!” In the end, their only concrete case of in-person voter fraud in the 20th century is a single person in Washington State.
I don’t think this was key to their opinion, since they cite other state interests, but it is amusing.
Democracy is not based on the assumption that the people are wise. It is based on the assumption that the people – all of them equally, good and bad, wise and stupid, ignorant and sophisticated – are sovereign. All have to deal equally with the results of what government decides to do, therefore all should have equal say in choosing leaders.
Not that there haven’t been dissenting views.
The only thing I see nefarious is someone voting without a photo ID.
Except the Democrats who allow superdelegates choose who the…nevermind.
Can anyone seriously doubt that the real purpose of fighting these statutes is the blind-eye turned towards illegel and illegitimate voting that benefits one particular party?
Come on - both sides have less than legit reasons to either fight for or against this proposal. However, the proposal itself is a good idea - make sure that the voters ARE the voters.
The Democrats spent a lot of time fighting military absentee ballots in Florida, the Republicans like to make sure that felons are swept off of the list. Both sides will do whatever it takes to make it easier for their own constituencies, and harder for the other side.
QFT
I don’t buy your equivalence. Your example of military ballots and felon lists is instructive. In the first case, the Democrats attempted to selectively enforce the existing law (which required postmarks to ensure that ballots arrived on time). In the second case, the Republicans attempted to break the law by disenfranchising legal voters (their method of determining felons mysteriously included almost no hispanics, who vote R in FL, and a bunch of non-felon blacks, who generally vote D).
I think it’s probably true that both parties are disposed to make it harder for supporters of the other to vote. But I’m not convinced that both go to the same lengths.
That’s a damn good point.
Search engines are your friend.
See also here
I suppose that counts as both electoral and voter fraud.
Are you saying my vote (I have ID) should count as only three-fifths of a vote?