# Supreme Court upholds Indiana Voter ID law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227 "2008-04-28T15:23:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/1 "2008-04-28T15:23:43Z")
[Report on Supreme Court opinion on Voter ID law.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/) Have fun. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/2 "2008-04-28T15:37:30Z")
[quote=] Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, “The universally applicable requirements of Indiana’s voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not ‘even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.’” [/quote] Waitaminnit – **is** it free? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/3 "2008-04-28T15:40:05Z")
Government IDs are free? They aren’t free in Illinois at least. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/4 "2008-04-28T15:41:51Z")
Guess they can be free: > [@](#): > > The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can’t afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented. > > SOURCE: [Apply for a New Indiana Identification Card | DMV.ORG](http://www.dmv.org/in-indiana/id-cards.php) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/5 "2008-04-28T16:00:00Z")
[Here is the decision, with all the opinions.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZS.html) Note the fractures… :eek: ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/6 "2008-04-28T16:04:04Z")
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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418643) thread. Can anyone seriously doubt that the real purpose of these statutes is the suppression of legitimate but low-income voters? ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/7 "2008-04-28T16:05:14Z")
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq] [Report on Supreme Court opinion on Voter ID law.](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/) Have fun. 🙂 [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/8 "2008-04-28T16:07:37Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418643) thread. Can anyone seriously doubt that the real purpose of these statutes is the suppression of legitimate but low-income voters? [/QUOTE] You mean like the several hundred votes cast for Loretta Sanchez in California? > **[Loretta Sanchez](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loretta_Sanchez)** > > Loretta Lorna Sanchez (born January 7, 1960) is an American politician who served in the United States House of Representatives from 1997 to 2017, representing parts of central Orange County, California. A member of the Democratic Party, she was first elected in 1996, when she defeated long-serving Republican U.S. Representative Bob Dornan by fewer than 1,000 votes. During her time in the House of Representatives, Sanchez was a member of the Blue Dog Coalition of moderate-to-conservative Democ Sa... > [@](#): > > A Congressional investigation found evidence that 624 votes were indeed cast by non-citizens. An additional 124 votes had already been thrown out by California officials. These votes were not enough to throw Sanchez’s victory into doubt, so the investigation was halted and the outcome was upheld by a Republican-controlled Congress. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/9 "2008-04-28T16:11:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/10 "2008-04-28T16:13:57Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418643) thread. Can anyone seriously doubt that the real purpose of these statutes is the suppression of legitimate but low-income voters? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/11 "2008-04-28T16:15:31Z")
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting] 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.. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/12 "2008-04-28T16:17:34Z")
[QUOTE=bump] 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. [/QUOTE] 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.](http://www.abelard.org/iqedfran/gondour.php) ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/13 "2008-04-28T16:20:32Z")
The only thing I see nefarious is someone voting _without_ a photo ID. ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/14 "2008-04-28T16:27:41Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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. [/QUOTE] Except the Democrats who allow superdelegates choose who the…nevermind. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/15 "2008-04-28T16:28:01Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Can anyone seriously doubt that the real purpose of these statutes is the suppression of legitimate but low-income voters? [/QUOTE] _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. ---
**Author:** ![ManiacMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b782af/32.png) [@ManiacMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ManiacMan)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/16 "2008-04-28T16:32:11Z")
[QUOTE=Algher] _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. [/QUOTE] QFT ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/17 "2008-04-28T16:36:30Z")
[QUOTE=Algher] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/18 "2008-04-28T16:39:46Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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.** [/QUOTE] That’s a damn good point. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/19 "2008-04-28T16:44:05Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 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 [/QUOTE] Search engines are your friend. [Top of the list](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3828322.ece). See also [here](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article377468.ece) > [@The Times](#): > > They coldly exploited communities where many cannot speak English or write their names. They forced what the judge called “dishonest or frightened” postmen into handing over sacks of postal ballots. They seem to have infiltrated the mail service: several voters gave evidence that their ballot papers were altered to support Labour after they put them in the post. I suppose that counts as both electoral and voter fraud. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/20 "2008-04-28T16:49:49Z")
[QUOTE=bump] 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. [/QUOTE] Are you saying my vote (I have ID) should count as only three-fifths of a vote? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227.md?page=2)