# 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:** 3
**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, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/41 "2008-04-28T18:58:03Z")
[QUOTE=Frylock] Yeah\* but they don’t get **more votes**. That’s the awesome part. -FrL- \*Do the educated have that much power by virtue of their education? [/QUOTE] No cite, but I learned in college polysci of studies showing that some people, generally the better educated, function as “sociological stars” at election time – others who know them ask their opinion, follow their lead, and influence others in turn. Beyond that, of course, they are probably in a better position than others to influence the process through campaign contributions. And for most elected offices, you need at least a college education and preferably graduate education to even get taken seriously as a candidate. How many high-school dropouts are there in Congress? It’s not a constitutional or statutory requirement, but it’s real. The disproportionate political influence of the rich is even more unmistakeable. ---
**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, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/42 "2008-04-28T19:22:24Z")
And, of course, educated people predominate in the media, punditocracy, commentariat, and thinktankia, all of which have some effect on elections. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/43 "2008-04-28T19:39:06Z")
[QUOTE=ManiacMan] The only thing I see nefarious is someone voting _without_ a photo ID. [/QUOTE] Then I am nefarious. I have a voter registration card which has no photo. I have voted for many years. ---
**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, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/44 "2008-04-28T19:46:02Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] Then I am nefarious. I have a voter registration card which has no photo. I have voted for many years. [/QUOTE] I believe he meant someone who refuses to offer photo identification upon request as a requirement to vote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/45 "2008-04-28T19:55:05Z")
[QUOTE=Richard Parker] Selective enforcement is when you only apply the law to some people for whom it applies. But the list includes names of people who aren’t felons. If you concede that they were picking and choosing names (as you would be with the above argument), then you concede that they picked voters who could not legally be disenfranchised. [/QUOTE] Not remotely. As I understand the issue, a private contractor was hired to identify ineligible voters. They produced a list that ended up having numerous errors, and Florida elections officials relied on the list without ever verifying its accuracy. Now, again as I understand it, the initial Hispanic problem arose because of a difference between the “potential felon” database and the voter database. The “felon” database had no category for race being Hispanic; the voter database did. When the comparison between the two was used to create the challenge list, this error resulted in a “no match” for many Hispanics. In fact, when the Associated Press reviewed the challenge list, they found voters with Hispanic surnames present; what they had in common was that they had not identified themselves as Hispanic on the voter database. Now, if, upon being informed of this error, officials decided not to take the time to correct it, because it’s an error that ran to their advantage, they were simply exercising the same sort of selective enforcement that you regard with, at best, faint dismay when the Democrats did it. Moreover, the entire episode shows nothing more than error – no “knowing” disenfranchisement of legal voters. [This USA Today](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-07-10-felons-vote-fla_x.htm) article supports those claims. What evidence are you relying upon for the assertion that they KNOWINGLY disenfranchised legal voters? ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/46 "2008-04-28T19:58:40Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Whereas [“black box voting”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_voting) involves the possibility that some partisan hacker or some dishonest or suborned elections-office worker can change the result of the election with a few keystrokes. One sees the difference? [/QUOTE] Yes. One is a Democrat “possibility”, the other is a Republican one. Got it. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/47 "2008-04-28T20:37:37Z")
[QUOTE=Polerius] Why anyone would be in favor of people being able to vote without showing a government-issued photo ID is beyond me. [/QUOTE] I’m only familiar with CA election procedures, but I imagine many states run their elections similarly. Some amount of time before the election, you register by obtaining a piece of paper, filling it out, and then mailing it to the registrar of voters for your county. A few weeks before the election, they send out voting information, including a sample ballot, information packet, absentee ballot (if you vote absentee), etc. If you vote absentee, you just fill out the ballot and mail it in. If you vote at the polling station, then you go to the polling station, bring your packet, and vote. Absentee ballots don’t require any more security than the post office provides. Why should in-person voting require more? ---
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/48 "2008-04-28T20:40:59Z")
[QUOTE=ArizonaTeach] Yes. One is a Democrat “possibility”, the other is a Republican one. Got it. [/QUOTE] At the moment, the voting machines are made (and the proprietary software kept secret with astonishing ferocity) by Diebold, known to be a definitely and vocally pro-Republican corporation. But it need not necessarily always be so, the contracts being let by whichever party is in control at the moment. Of course, I’m sure you have no trouble trusting the Dems with that kind of power. ---
**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, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/49 "2008-04-28T20:45:19Z")
[QUOTE=iamthewalrus(:3=] I’m only familiar with CA election procedures, but I imagine many states run their elections similarly. Some amount of time before the election, you register by obtaining a piece of paper, filling it out, and then mailing it to the registrar of voters for your county. A few weeks before the election, they send out voting information, including a sample ballot, information packet, absentee ballot (if you vote absentee), etc. If you vote absentee, you just fill out the ballot and mail it in. If you vote at the polling station, then you go to the polling station, bring your packet, and vote. Absentee ballots don’t require any more security than the post office provides. Why should in-person voting require more? [/QUOTE] I would take this in the opposite direction - make absentee voting MORE difficult to prove that the actual voter filled it out. ---
**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, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/50 "2008-04-28T20:56:20Z")
I have to say, I don’t entirely understand why the failure to include ethnicity on the felon list meant that these names wouldn’t show up when they cross-checked the lists. But I was basing my opinion on the fact that some people on the ineligible list were not, in fact, ineligible–they had received clemency and were eligible to vote under FL law. We can interpret that mistake in one of two ways. It was a good faith error on the part of the this group, or it was a knowing error to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters. I agree that we’ve no conclusive evidence either way, but I think the circumstantial evidence suggests a knowing decision. > [@Bricker](#): > > Now, if, upon being informed of this error, officials decided not to take the time to correct it, because it’s an error that ran to their advantage, they were simply exercising the same sort of selective enforcement that you regard with, at best, faint dismay when the Democrats did it. I don’t follow. Why isn’t selectively disenfranchising the legally disenfranchisable different from selectively disenfranchised those with legal rights to vote? They are both selective, but one seems far worse than the other. It is important to recall that the officials in question fought tooth and nail not to reveal the list. They had to lose in court before deciding to make it public, after which it was revealed as erroneous. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/51 "2008-04-28T22:40:17Z")
What is acceptable photo ID will have to be determined. When this was launched a couple years ago ,some were suggesting a passport . That would be a real problem for the poor. Then Indiana votes next week ,how many could be turned away? For some people the cost of a state ID is a problem. Then transportation can be vexing. Some live in rural areas and state offices are not that close. My mother died a couple years ago. For her to obtain a new birth certificate and then get to a state office would have been difficult. I think the problem is being understated. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2008, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/52 "2008-04-28T22:51:36Z")
[QUOTE=gonzomax] What is acceptable photo ID will have to be determined. When this was launched a couple years ago ,some were suggesting a passport . That would be a real problem for the poor. Then Indiana votes next week ,how many could be turned away? For some people the cost of a state ID is a problem. [/quote] From the decision: > [@SCOTUS](#): > > Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. > [@gonzomax](#): > > Then transportation can be vexing. Some live in rural areas and state offices are not that close. > My mother died a couple years ago. For her to obtain a new birth certificate and then get to a state office would have been difficult. I think the problem is being understated. > [@SCOTUS](#): > > The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons–e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate–is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. ---
**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, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/53 "2008-04-28T22:54:08Z")
[Oh, yeh, them provisional ballots . . .](http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=22230) ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2008, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/54 "2008-04-29T00:23:24Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] [Oh, yeh, them provisional ballots . . .](http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=22230) [/QUOTE] The purpose of the provisional ballot is to mitigate potential problems. No voting system in the universe is without any flaws. The provisional ballot is the backup plan. I would also note that the complaints in your link seem a bit overblown. I have no real problem telling a voter that if he’s showed up at the wrong place, he can’t vote at all. In my opinion, it’s reasonable to expect voters to have a minimum level of responsibility. Still, what I think is reasonable - or Constitutional - is of no import. What matters is what the Supreme Court thinks. And they have spoken. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2008, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/55 "2008-04-29T01:44:16Z")
[Some Commentary](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013616.php): > [@](#): > > Presumably these were the best examples that anyone could come up with. And what do you conclude from them? That’s easy: in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare while absentee voter fraud is, perhaps, a problem genuinely worth addressing. Needless to say, though, Indiana’s law does exactly the opposite: it requires voter ID for in-person voting and does nothing to ensure the integrity of absentee voting. > > We all know why this is: it’s because, as Common Cause reminds us, restricting in-person voting tends to reduce turnout among minorities, the elderly, voters with disabilities, the poor, and the young — all of which, though CC is too polite to mention it, tend to vote Democratic. Absentee voters, by contrast, tend to vote Republican. [And some background](http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/03/21/us_attorneys/index1.html): > [@](#): > > More generally, there seems to be little statistical basis for the Republican fixation on voter fraud. The few studies that have been done show fraud to be insignificant to the outcome of elections; it has been measured at levels as low as .0004 percent (PDF) of all ballots cast. Loraine Minnite, an assistant professor of political science at Barnard College, conducted a study of elections from 1992 to 2002 for Demos, a London- and New York-based public-policy think tank. Her analysis of the numbers showed that “the incidence of election fraud in the United States is low and that fraud has had a minimal impact on electoral outcomes.” A 2006 report from the United States Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency created by Congress to “[conduct] research on election administration issues,” calls Minnite’s study the “most systematic look at fraud” (PDF). > > The problem with the data cited by Minnite and other researchers is that it only counts people who were caught. And for people who believe that voter fraud is widespread, meaning Republicans, the other problem is the source. Numeric research on voter fraud tends to be conducted by and for people who don’t believe it’s widespread, meaning liberals. Demos, the think tank for which Minnite conducted her study, is progressive. Minnite also just wrote a new paper debunking voter fraud for Project Vote – a group affiliated with ACORN. Despite a federal agency’s endorsement, don’t expect Republicans to read and heed Minnite’s “systematic study” or to believe anyone else who suggests voter fraud is less than rampant. In fact, the USEAC report that includes an endorsement of Minnite’s study was initially withheld. The USEAC delayed releasing it, according to the agency’s chairman, a Bush appointee, because of “a division of opinion.” The report had failed to give much credence to the issue of voter fraud. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2008, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/56 "2008-04-29T02:09:03Z")
I’d be interested in a more detailed analysis of the decision. As I understand it, it was split exactly in three – 3-3-3. Three justices said “no voter ID, ever”. Three said “voter ID is always fine”. And three, the deciding three, said, “voter ID may be OK in some circumstances, including the specific ones presented in this case”. What I’m interested in is if the middle three (Stevens, Kennedy, and Roberts) gave any indication of when they thought voter ID would NOT be OK. Ed ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2008, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/57 "2008-04-29T14:07:10Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] The purpose of the provisional ballot is to mitigate potential problems. No voting system in the universe is without any flaws. The provisional ballot is the backup plan. I would also note that the complaints in your link seem a bit overblown. **I have no real problem telling a voter that if he’s showed up at the wrong place, he can’t vote at all**. In my opinion, it’s reasonable to expect voters to have a minimum level of responsibility. Still, what I think is reasonable - or Constitutional - is of no import. What matters is what the Supreme Court thinks. And they have spoken. [/QUOTE] Are you saying that a voter going to the wrong table can’t be directed to the right table in the same location or who could go home and come back with the proper ID (these two transgressions are mentioned in the link) can’t be given this information by an election day volunteer who could, no, who has a responsiblity to do so? Also, how does the provisional ballot mitigate potential problems is there is simply no followup (or provisional in the law for that followup)? That I consider to be a major flaw, not just to bea accepted as is. Since I know you’re not going to respond to me, would anyone else like to take this one? Suranyi, [this](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZS.html) was posted previously. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/58 "2008-04-29T15:30:10Z")
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting] Suranyi, [this](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-21.ZS.html) was posted previously. [/QUOTE] From what I gather, the three key justices said that they only agreed it was OK in Indiana’s case becasue the ID card was free. Charging for the ID card, as I believe California does, would make the ID card not pass muster. Ed ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2008, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/59 "2008-04-29T16:23:12Z")
[QUOTE=5-4-Fighting] Are you saying that a voter going to the wrong table can’t be directed to the right table in the same location or who could go home and come back with the proper ID (these two transgressions are mentioned in the link) can’t be given this information by an election day volunteer who could, no, who has a responsiblity to do so? [/quote] I would like to know how often someone is offered a provisional ballot because they are standing at the wrong table in the right room. That is, the link would have you believe that a pervasive problem is: multiple precincts vote in the same place, at different tables; voter stands at Table A, and is told his name does not appear and therefore he can only cast a provisional ballot rather than being told to step over to Table B. I contend that if such an event has happened, it’s a vanishingly tiny percentage of provisional ballots cast. It’s so insignificant that it cannot drive a policy discussion about how to handle voting. Now, if it’s truly a more serious problem than I’m picturing, I would like to see some evidence of that. > [@](#): > > Also, how does the provisional ballot mitigate potential problems is there is simply no followup (or provisional in the law for that followup)? That I consider to be a major flaw, not just to bea accepted as is. What do you mean by “followup?” > [@](#): > > Since I know you’re not going to respond to me, would anyone else like to take this one? That knowledge is as solid as the rest of your conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2008, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227/60 "2008-04-29T16:24:51Z")
[QUOTE=suranyi] From what I gather, the three key justices said that they only agreed it was OK in Indiana’s case becasue the ID card was free. Charging for the ID card, as I believe California does, would make the ID card not pass muster. Ed [/QUOTE] I suspect that if California doesn’t offer a free card to those who qualify, based on income, then their scheme would fail. They’re certainly able to charge Jay Leno for his card. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-upholds-indiana-voter-id-law/447227.md?page=4)