[paraclete]

Talk about a stupid process

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

No, you don't.. You keep on saying the issue HAS been ruled upon, and it HASN'T.

Excon

It has.

In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population, and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] 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. 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. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."

Justice Antonin Scalia states in his concurring opinion that the Supreme Court should defer to state and local legislators and that the Supreme Court should not get involved in local election law cases, which would do nothing but encourage more litigation:

"It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."

What exactly are you not getting that the process has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS and if the others states do the same as Indiana that process will be cleared as well.

[excon]

What exactly are you not getting that the process has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS and if the others states do the same as Indiana that process will be cleared as well.

Hello again, Steve:

I agree. Only, I think the states are doing it DIFFERENTLY this time. This isn't only about ID's and one state... It's about the PURGING of the voter rolls by Republicans... It's about REDUCING early voting. It's about the INTENTION of the Republicans. Need I remind you what that Republican said in Pa... It's about the Total of the Republican effort.. Does it constitute voter suppression, or voter protection?

Now, if what you say is true, the Supreme Court won't even hear the case. But, I think they will. I think they'll HAVE to.

We'll see, won't we?

excon

[speechlesstx]

And here I thought change was good. Turns out change isn't good if it means a fair election, eh? See I agree with the court, the state's compelling interest in the integrity of the election overrides the minimal burden placed on a few citizens. But your side works overtime making mountains out of molehills in the courts. It must suck living a life of perpetual, unnecessary outrage.

[NeedKarma]

It must suck living a life of perpetual, unnecessary outrage.

Yes, it must. :D

[speechlesstx]

Yes, it must. :D

I wouldn't know.

[NeedKarma]

I wouldn't know.

Hehe. (thanks for the laugh, carry on)

[excon]

It must suck living a life of perpetual, unnecessary outrage.

Hello again, Steve:

Need I remind you about your hysteria over the church and contraceptives?? We're not the only unhappy lot.

excon

[TUT317]

It has.



What exactly are you not getting that the process has been ruled constitutional by SCOTUS and if the others states do the same as Indiana that process will be cleared as well.

Sorry to be the odd person out but I don't think it does.

It is the last bit I don't get. I get some of the last bit but not all of it.

(A) "It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgement must prevail.......

(B)....unless it imposes a severe and unjustified burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."


The first bit (A) states my previous claim that SCOTUS approves of I.D. laws in principle. The states can make I.D. easy or difficult to obtain.

Part(B) does little to make sure that the states don't impose sever and unjust burden on voters of a particular state.

I could be wrong but I am thinking that the Equal Protection Clause actually does very little to ensure voter rights. Other than making sure a particular class is not disadvantaged,there seems to be very little in it for the voter.

Disadvantaging a particular type of voter- Democrat or Republican would be very difficult to police, let alone ,make a case under Equal Protection Clause.


Tut

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Need I remind you about your hysteria over the church and contraceptives??? We're not the only unhappy lot.

excon

Didn't say you were, but I just can't seem to muster up the same kind of outrage over people who already need ID to do just about anything in their daily lives having to prove you're an eligible voter, to forcing the church to violate its beliefs protected so obviously by the constitution.

[speechlesstx]

Sorry to be the odd person out but I don't think it does.

It is the last bit I don't get. I get some of the last bit but not all of it.

(A) "It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgement must prevail.......

(B)....unless it imposes a severe and unjustified burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class."


The first bit (A) states my previous claim that SCOTUS approves of I.D. laws in principle. The states can make I.D. easy or difficult to obtain.

Part(B) does little to make sure that the states don't impose sever and unjust burden on voters of a particular state.

I could be wrong but I am thinking that the Equal Protection Clause actually does very little to ensure voter rights. Other than making sure a particular class is not disadvantaged,there seems to be very little in it for the voter.

Disadvantaging a particular type of voter- Democrat or Republican would be very difficult to police, let alone ,make a case under Equal Protection Clause.


Tut

What you think really has no bearing on what the court ruled. The court ruled Indian's process constitutional, what you think doesn't change that.

[excon]

What you think really has no bearing on what the court ruled. The court ruled Indian's process constitutional, what you think doesn't change that.

Hello again, Steve:

But, it DOES... The Supreme Court often times will revisit a ruling to clarify it, and TUT points out a HUGE loophole. There are others too.

The bottom line is this: IF SCOTUS agrees to HEAR the case, what they ruled in the Indiana case is OUT the window.. If they decline, then the Indiana case is the law of the land..

excon

PS> You're just pissed because the Futbolasaurs are eating Donuts..

[TUT317]

Hello again, Steve:

But, it DOES... The Supreme Court often times will revisit a ruling to clarify it, and TUT points out a HUGE loophole. There are others too.

The bottom line is this: IF SCOTUS agrees to HEAR the case, what they ruled in the Indiana case is OUT the window.. If they decline, then the Indiana case is the law of the land..

excon

PS> You're just pissed because the Futbolasaurs are eating Donuts..

Yes. Another way of saying it would be that the court hasn't actually ruled the process constitutional. Rather, it has actually ruled that the laws don't violate the Constitution.

Just a non-legal observation. Others in the know may have a different opinion.



Tut

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

But, it DOES... The Supreme Court often times will revisit a ruling to clarify it, and TUT points out a HUGE loophole. There are others too.

The bottom line is this: IF SCOTUS agrees to HEAR the case, what they ruled in the Indiana case is OUT the window.. If they decline, then the Indiana case is the law of the land..

excon

PS> You're just pissed because the Futbolasaurs are eating Donuts..

If Jermichael Finley gets 4 points, and he will, the Futbolasaurs are toast. Or should I say barbecued?

[speechlesstx]

Yes. Another way of saying it would be that the court hasn't actually ruled the process constitutional. Rather, it has actually ruled that the laws don't violate the Constitution.

Just a non-legal observation. Others in the know may have a different opinion.



Tut

Tut,

You and ex must have a different definition for "process" or "procedure" than I do. The majority affirmed Indiana's procedure for obtaining an ID.

[talaniman]

That was in Indiana, AFTER a court challenge to the law was decided by the Supreme Court. That's the difference and as you should know Indiana processed free IDs a lot faster than Pennsylvania and other states have done.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dissents

Justice David Souter, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, filed a dissenting opinion, which would have declared the voter ID laws unconstitutional. Souter argued that Indiana had the burden of producing actual evidence of the existence of fraud, as opposed to relying on abstract harms, before imposing "an unreasonable and irrelevant burden on voters who are poor and old."

Justice Stephen Breyer also filed a dissenting opinion arguing that Indiana's law was unconstitutional. While he spoke approvingly of some voter ID laws, he found that Indiana's procedures for acquiring an ID were too burdensome and costly for some low income or elderly voters.

The legislation's partisan motivations and implications fueled much of the controversy. While the majority conceded that Republican Party's partisan interest in reducing low-income voter turnout likely motivated the law's passage, it found that the law's valid neutral justifications "should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators."

That's the objection to the process of implementation and the timing of the law and the election. The law being passed and the process being an after thought makes this look like intentional rigging and restricting a right.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Neither Easy Nor Free

State officials have acknowledged that the state Department of Transportation, which issues driver's licenses and photo ID, does not grant "free" photo IDs. Voters must provide several forms of backup identification in order to obtain a PennDOT photo ID card. That proof can be costly.

No doubt we will have IDs, mostly everyone agrees with them, but its going to take a while for some states because some states workbetter in this area than othrs. And its troubling indeed when repubs come out ON RECORD and say it is for the purpose of SUPPRESSION.

Even you have to find their motives questionable and unfair, Speech!

[speechlesstx]

That was in Indiana, AFTER a court challenge to the law was decided by the Supreme Court. Thats the difference and as you should know Indiana processed free IDs a lot faster than Pennsylvania and other states have done.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Thats the objection to the process of implementation and the timing of the law and the election. The law being passed and the process being an after thought makes this look like intentional rigging and restricting a right.

Pennsylvania Voter ID Neither Easy Nor Free



No doubt we will have IDs, mostly everyone agrees with them, but its going to take a while for some states because some states workbetter in this area than othrs. And its troubling indeed when repubs come out ON RECORD and say it is for the purpose of SUPPRESSION.

Even you have to find their motives questionable and unfair, Speech!!

No one has said it was for the purpose of suppression.

[TUT317]

Tut,

You and ex must have a different definition for "process" or "procedure" than I do. The majority affirmed Indiana's procedure for obtaining an ID.

Yes, that would seem to be the case. I found the following in Wikipedia so I'll put it out there for discussion. Apparently the right to vote in the U.S. Constitution centres on birth, race and sex.

The "right to vote" is explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution in the above referenced amendments but only in reference to the fact that the franchise cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications qualifications. In other words, the "right to vote" is perhaps better understood, in lay terms, as only prohibiting certain forms of discrimination in establishing qualifications.STATES MAY DENY THE VOTE FOR OTHER REASONS.

Taken from wikipedia today.

It would seem to be the case that the U.S. Constitution deliberately leaves the qualifications for voting largely up to the states. So you can say Indiana's I.D. laws are Constitutional. Constitutional in a very broad sense.

As EX has pointed out states are in no way bound to use the Indiana model for voter I.D. implementation. I still think that individual states are free to implement fair or unfair I.D. laws. Its up to them; provided they fall under the broad definition of being constitutional.

Are there any legal opinions out there??


Tut

[talaniman]

No one has said it was for the purpose of suppression.

No the guy in PA said it was to help Romney win the election, so that's politically motivated enough for me. NOT FOR VOTER INTEGRITY.

All those links and you still have doubts about you guys rigging the system? Wonder why the Supreme Court told the lower court judge to take a closer look at his decision?

[TUT317]

There is another problem with the SCOTUS decision that I have come across and this may help to amplify my concerns.


It seems as though the voter laws in Wisconsin are a bit different in the fact they set out in greater detail voter rights. On this basis it was found by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that the attempt to implement voter I.D. in that state was unconstitutional in terms of that state's own constitution.

It seems to me there is an important question here in relation to the Crawford/Marion decision. That question is, how does the Crawford/Marion decision show Wisconsin's voter I.D. laws to actually be constitutional? I don't think it does.

I also believe the Crawford/Marion decision doesn't demonstrates anything other than what Steve has been claiming all along. That is, the process is constitutional.

When Wisconsin made its voter laws more prescriptive than most, I am sure that the Crawford/Marion decision would give the Wisconsin process its blessing. Therefore, I would also guess that the constitutional nature of the process means very little in terms of a bigger picture.

If SCOTUS really meant that voter I.D. laws were constitutional, then as EX points out, the decision would need to be the law of the land.

Would it not be the case that this SCOTUS decision changes very little. The states are still largely responsible for making up their own I.D. laws ( Scalia says as much) and these laws can be as tough or easy as they want. So long as the PROCESS is constitutional the states can make such voter laws.

Tut