Supreme Court upholds Indiana Voter ID law

Great Debates
81

As a democracy, shouldn’t we err on the side of people voting? We all know that, on any election day, a certain percentage of people will be without ID for whatever reason. Why should we be so dismissive of large numbers of otherwise eligible voters being prevented from voting due to our obsession with preventing what I’ll bet are smaller numbers of other people from voting.

Sure, aliens and felons are technically not allowed to vote, but they’re still human beings in this society and have a stake in the outcome of elections. So what if a few slip through?

We’ve all heard the saying, “better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison”. The same value should apply to voting.

But of course, the Republicans are more likely to win this way.

82

[QUOTE=sqweels]

Sure, aliens and felons are technically not allowed to vote…
[/QUOTE]

In most states, felons are allowed to vote. And only in three states are they barred for life from voting.

83

[QUOTE=sqweels]
As a democracy, shouldn’t we err on the side of people voting? We all know that, on any election day, a certain percentage of people will be without ID for whatever reason. Why should we be so dismissive of large numbers of otherwise eligible voters being prevented from voting due to our obsession with preventing what I’ll bet are smaller numbers of other people from voting.

Sure, aliens and felons are technically not allowed to vote, but they’re still human beings in this society and have a stake in the outcome of elections. So what if a few slip through?

We’ve all heard the saying, “better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison”. The same value should apply to voting.

But of course, the Republicans are more likely to win this way.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you believe that aliens and felons favor Democrats? (By that I mean motives.)

84

[QUOTE=sqweels]
We’ve all heard the saying, “better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison”. The same value should apply to voting.
[/QUOTE]

Come, now, you have a much bigger personal stake in whether you have to go to prison than in whether you’re allowed to vote!

85

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
It isn’t the residence part, its the identity part. That requires birth certificate, passport, or military ID.
[/QUOTE]

How did these disenfranchised voters get their social security cards? Last I checked you needed official ID to get one of those. In this day and age, I can’t shed any tears for people who lose birth certificates and choose not to replace them.

86

[QUOTE=BwanaBob]
How did these disenfranchised voters get their social security cards? Last I checked you needed official ID to get one of those. In this day and age, I can’t shed any tears for people who lose birth certificates and choose not to replace them.
[/QUOTE]

Such as those who were adopted and never had their birth certificates? Or those who are elderly and their birth certs are non existent?

87

Correction of something way up post that is taking on fact status and is a myth.

Democrats AND Republicans both challenged military ballots. Democrats did it in predominately Republican districts and Republicans challenged ballots in predominately Democratic districts.

Both sides got in hot water from the media and Pentagon after accusing each other and the challenges were dropped.

88

[QUOTE=sqweels]

We’ve all heard the saying, “better that a guilty man go free than an innocent man go to prison”. The same value should apply to voting.

[/QUOTE]

Why should it?

89

[QUOTE=spazattak]
OK not entirely true. It costs $13 to renew… per Whack-a-mole’s cite. That just seems like an odd way to go about things. Thanks for that, I couldn’t find anything about how much the first one cost on the IN-BMV site.
[/QUOTE]

No. The cite Whack-a-mole provided is not an official Indiana State government site. It’s “DMV.org,” which claims it’s an “unofficial guide to the DMV,” and states that it’s “not affiliated with any government agency.”

In this matter, it’s also wrong.

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/pdfs/IVIG_2008.pdf

The above links to a PDF pamphlet from the official in.gov website that note the voter card is free.

http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/howdoi.html

That link is also part of the in.gov site, and also confirms the card is free.

Finally, I called the Indiana DMV, 317-233-6000, and confirmed via voice that the card is free. Renewals for the card are free.

THE CARD IS FREE.

90

[QUOTE=smithsb]
Correction of something way up post that is taking on fact status and is a myth.

Democrats AND Republicans both challenged military ballots. Democrats did it in predominately Republican districts and Republicans challenged ballots in predominately Democratic districts.

Both sides got in hot water from the media and Pentagon after accusing each other and the challenges were dropped.
[/QUOTE]

Do you have a link to that? As I recall it was Gore’s attorney who worked up the ways to disqualify military ballots.

Now - the Bush camp WAS going after absentee ballots in other areas, but my memory was that the Democrats were nailing the military ones.

91

To the people who feel that an ID requirement is equivalent to a poll tax, what about the following:

  1. I have to pay for gas plus wear and tear on my car to get to the polling place. Is that not a poll tax?

  2. If the state had a car service pick up every voter for free and drive them to the polls, wouldn’t I expend calories walking into the precient, then have to replinish those calories by purchasing food, making this form of voting a poll tax?

  3. So, if the state picked me up at home, calculated the total amount of calories I expended from the time I left my home until the time I walked through my front door after voting, wouldn’t the 25 minutes or so that I was gone represent a loss of my valuable time, thereby becoming a poll tax?

  4. Now the state pays for my picture ID, pays for the food to replace my voting calories, pays me my normal market rate for my profession, wouldn’t they then have to contact the customers that I had to reschedule in order to vote? If I do it myself, then that is more time, more calories, so in order to keep it from being a poll tax, the state should review my schedule and make the necessary phone calls.

  5. Then I have to prepare my books so the state can call my contacts…etc.

At what point is something so minor that it is not a poll tax?

92

[QUOTE=jtgain]

At what point is something so minor that it is not a poll tax?
[/QUOTE]

Your characterization insults those who are truly burdened by the law. Most people, 99%, can hop on a bus and sort it out. No problem. But that 1%, who are handicapped in some way or otherwise face special circumstances, may indeed be seriously burdened by having to travel to the BMV, purchase a new birth certificate, etc.

But, the gist of your question is an important one, and one that the court should have answered. Given that we have on the one hand some burdens (however minor) on voters, and on the other, some decrease the potential for fraud, how do we weigh the two? From my admittedly brief read, they made a decision, but offered no standard.

What is your standard? Would you burden one voter if it meant preventing one fraud? How about making ten voters spend an extra hour each in order to prevent one fraud? I don’t see why the answer to that question is obvious. And I especially don’t see why you’d want to burden voters at all when you have absolutely no evidence of in-person fraud happening in Indiana–and elsewhere your best example is from 1868. The court found the 43,000 burdened voters number untrustworthy, but even if it is off by a scale of 100, that’s still a lot of burden for an illusory harm.

93

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
But there is a harm to the individual. Enfranchisement is empowering, disenfranchisement is disempowering. You no longer get to exercise your civic responsibility and make your voice heard.

[/QUOTE]

Hmmmmm
Kind of like when I went to vote and was told I had already voted? Voter fraud IS disenfranchisement for the one whose right was fradulently taken away because he imposter wasn’t asked for an ID, utility bill, or voter’s card.

94

[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
Hmmmmm
Kind of like when I went to vote and was told I had already voted? Voter fraud IS disenfranchisement for the one whose right was fradulently taken away because he imposter wasn’t asked for an ID, utility bill, or voter’s card.
[/QUOTE]

Good point. What happened next to you? Did they attempt to find out who voted in your place?

95

[QUOTE=Bricker]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Apparently the phrase “unless the government decides that you can afford it” is to be found in some emanation from the penumbra of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.

96

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
Your characterization insults those who are truly burdened by the law. Most people, 99%, can hop on a bus and sort it out. No problem. But that 1%, who are handicapped in some way or otherwise face special circumstances, may indeed be seriously burdened by having to travel to the BMV, purchase a new birth certificate, etc.

But, the gist of your question is an important one, and one that the court should have answered. Given that we have on the one hand some burdens (however minor) on voters, and on the other, some decrease the potential for fraud, how do we weigh the two? From my admittedly brief read, they made a decision, but offered no standard.

What is your standard? Would you burden one voter if it meant preventing one fraud? How about making ten voters spend an extra hour each in order to prevent one fraud? I don’t see why the answer to that question is obvious. And I especially don’t see why you’d want to burden voters at all when you have absolutely no evidence of in-person fraud happening in Indiana–and elsewhere your best example is from 1868. The court found the 43,000 burdened voters number untrustworthy, but even if it is off by a scale of 100, that’s still a lot of burden for an illusory harm.
[/QUOTE]

What are we talking about here? Are we asking if the law is constitutional or whether it is a good idea?

I, for one, am sick and tired of having to show valid picture ID for more and more things in society. They knew that a national ID card would never work, so they’ve taken our existing driver’s license and morphed it into that purpose. If I was in the legislature, I would certainly vote against this law.

But, I fail to see any constitutional problems. What part of the constitution does this law violate? The most common complaint I’ve heard is a poll tax. And if the ID is free or at a nominal cost, then how is it a poll tax anymore than the calories I burn walking into the voting booth?

97

Regardless of the merits of the law in general, in Indiana this was obviously a ploy to reduce the number of Democrats voting. When Mitch Daniels was elected four years ago the first two things he did were: 1) start pushing for the voter ID law; and 2) close a bunch of BMV branches in heavily Democrat areas. The most egregious example was the BMV branch in Gary, a town which obviously leans heavily Democratic. His excuse for closing that branch: a lot of people in Gary don’t have cars. Despite the fact that that branch had issued 65,000 driver’s licenses the year before. So now these 65,000 people, who don’t have cars, don’t have access to a BMV nearby, or on a public transportation line.

So whatever the merits of the law, or the rampant voter fraud for which there is no evidence, it is blatantly obvious to Hoosiers that this was a disenfranchisement game from day one.

98

[QUOTE=Steve MB]
Apparently the phrase “unless the government decides that you can afford it” is to be found in some emanation from the penumbra of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, hello. Are you going to predict massive domestic violence cases will arise from this law?

Sorry. Must have gotten confused.

On this point, you’re right – the cleanest solution is Indiana’s. If you don’t already have a photo ID for some other reason, like driving, the state must give you a free one that will allow voting. That solves the Jay Leno problem. Leno, and those similarly situated, will already have a photo ID that they’ve paid for, and certainly you don’t object to a state charging for driver’s licenses. If someone doesn’t have a driver’s license, be they prince or pauper, the state can certainly provide one free.

99

[QUOTE=Bricker]
No. The cite Whack-a-mole provided is not an official Indiana State government site. It’s “DMV.org,” which claims it’s an “unofficial guide to the DMV,” and states that it’s “not affiliated with any government agency.”

In this matter, it’s also wrong.

http://www.in.gov/sos/elections/pdfs/IVIG_2008.pdf

The above links to a PDF pamphlet from the official in.gov website that note the voter card is free.

http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/howdoi.html

That link is also part of the in.gov site, and also confirms the card is free.

Finally, I called the Indiana DMV, 317-233-6000, and confirmed via voice that the card is free. Renewals for the card are free.

THE CARD IS FREE.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for clearing that up. It does seem to be a reasonable implementation.

100

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Oh, hello. Are you going to predict massive domestic violence cases will arise from this law?
[/QUOTE]

Oh, hello. Learned to read the calendar yet, Orpheus?

And we now close out his hijack of the thread.