[tomder55]

I just did a quick read of Stevens' opinion.

[E]ven rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications... [H]owever, we [have] confirmed the general rule that "evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself" are not invidious... Rather than applying any "litmus test" that would neatly separate valid from invalid restrictions,. a court must identify and evaluate the interests put forward by the State as justifications for the burden imposed by its rule, and then make the "hard judgment" that our adversary system demands.


While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified.



The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud. The State has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures that have been criticized as antiquated and inefficient. [See National Commission on Federal Election Reform, To Assure Pride and Confidence in the Electoral Process 18 (2002) (with Honorary Co-chairs former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter).]

It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor - though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud - demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...8/04/07-21.pdf

[talaniman]

My only objection to voter IDS is how it was rolled out to the public. I doubt if DEMS will depend mostly on the courts in this matter. And the process is not over, not even here in Texas.

[speechlesstx]

My only objection to voter IDS is how it was rolled out to the public...

And how was that?

[excon]

Hello again,

Enough spin... The legal issue ISN'T voter ID's. As you guys noted, SCOTUS already gave it their OK... The issue is the PROCESS in which the law is being implemented... For example, even though an ID is required, if the PROCESS of obtaining one impinges on the rights of the voter, the law can be struck down. As we've discussed here, ad infinitum, the judges might find that the PROCESS equals voter suppression, OR they could think, like you, that it's just hunky dorey...

We'll see.

excon

PS> 2 outs in the 9th. Felix is pitching a PERFECT game... I'm very excited.

[paraclete]

Ex I don't understand this preoccupation with making people pay for things, where I come from when you register or change your registration you are sent a card verifying your registration, used in conjunction with another form of photo id your identify can be verified should this be necessary, as I understand this there is a very small incidence of voter fraud after all very few dogs and cats actually vote and even fewer run for office
http://www.news.com.au/world/hank-th...-1226451392013
I wonder if anyone asked for his birth certificate or photo id?

[excon]

Ex I don't understand this preoccupation with making people pay for things, where I come from when you register or change your registration you are sent a card verifying your registration,

Hello clete:

I have NO problem with the ID's. The problem is the requirement the state dumps on the VOTERS to obtain them... I agree that the state has an interest in the integrity of the elections.. But, it CAN'T stop there... It ALSO has an interest in seeing that ALL eligible voters cast their votes..

If the state wants everybody to HAVE an ID, it's incumbent on the state to make SURE that everybody has an ID, even if it has to HAND DELIVER every one.

But, as long as the state puts even ONE obstacle in front of ONE voter, it's voter suppression.. It's not the governments JOB to put up obstacles.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello clete:

I have NO problem with the ID's. The problem is the requirement the state dumps on the VOTERS to obtain them... I agree that the state has an interest in the integrity of the elections.. But, it CAN'T stop there... It ALSO has an interest in seeing that ALL eligible voters cast their votes..

If the state wants everybody to HAVE an ID, it's incumbent on the state to make SURE that everybody has an ID, even if it has to HAND DELIVER each and every one.

But, as long as the state puts even ONE obstacle in front of ONE voter, it's voter suppression.. It's not the governments JOB to put up obstacles.

excon

Ex I can only agree with you however

... It ALSO has an interest in seeing that ALL eligible voters cast their votes..

This objective would seem at odds with allowing voters the choice of whether they vote or not

[tomder55]

Yeah ;maybe the government should round up the voters and frog march them to the polling place
I already documented on this thred the very reasonable options that the voters of PA have to obtain a voter id.

[paraclete]

yeah ;maybe the government should round up the voters and frog march them to the polling place
I already documented on this thred the very reasonable options that the voters of PA have to obtain a voter id.

Don't be ridiculous Tom, you simply make it mandatory and give them a small fine for non compliance, they very quickly get the idea, after all contrary to popular opinion they are not stupid, just lazy

[speechlesstx]

I have NO problem with the ID's. The problem is the requirement the state dumps on the VOTERS to obtain them...

But, as long as the state puts even ONE obstacle in front of ONE voter, it's voter suppression.. It's not the governments JOB to put up obstacles.

excon

And I have a problem with the left thinking Americans are a bunch of helpless imbeciles, while whining about the decline of American exceptionalism they created.

Everyone has an 'obstacle' to vote, be it filling out the registration, getting to the polling place, mailing in your ballot, pushing the buttons on the screen, pulling the lever or whatever... it takes some effort on your part. Your protests are LAME. There are requirements to vote, this one is no more a burden than any other.

[talaniman]

So spend the money and make the ID's free like you said, open up more places that aren't 20/30 miles away and no bus service. That's what the did in Indiana, closed the urban DMV's, and moved them to rural areas, with NO bus service.

How does the great granny 93 years old, get a birth certificate in time to vote? Oh she will with a lot of help to overcome the obstacles you guys throw in front of her. Compassion dictates you deliver one, but that's not in the republican make up is it?

Voter fraud is an excuse to shave votes. At least the way you guys do it. Good ideas but lousy execution,as usual.

[excon]

And I have a problem with the left thinking Americans are a bunch of helpless imbeciles, while whining about the decline of American exceptionalism they created.

How does the great granny 93 years old, get a birth certificate in time to vote?

Hello again, tal:

All she needs to do is get on the bus, stop whining, and BE exceptional. Piece of cake, no?

excon

[speechlesstx]

You guys have never heard of mail? And seriously, how does a 93 year old get by for 93 years with no ID? She never left the house?

[talaniman]

Many have no need for a state ID. Of course you can't see that, but fact is its true. Maybe you just don't care about other people grannies. Shame you haven't a shred of empathy, or understanding, or the WILLINGNESS to try.

Hello again, tal:

All she needs to do is get on the bus, stop whining, and BE exceptional. Piece of cake, no?

excon

Easier for some than others, but don't tell a winger that. All they see are the benefits they get from it. Shaving Obama votes. Won't work like they think it will. But it was easy for them, and cheap!

[tomder55]

In Pa. case provisions were made as I documented earlier . There are NO reasons an eligible voter cannot easily obtain an id.

[talaniman]

Define easily.

[speechlesstx]

Many have no need for a state ID. Of course you can't see that, but fact is its true. Maybe you just don't care about other people grannies. Shame you haven't a shred of empathy, or understanding, or the WILLINGNESS to try.

Cry me a freakin' river. You're still going to tell me that those who you see as most likely to be disenfranchised get by without an ID... even though that demographic probably gets government benefits of some sort and had to prove who they were and why they were eligible to get them?

Easier for some than others, but don't tell a winger that. All they see are the benefits they get from it. Shaving Obama votes. Won't work like they think it will. But it was easy for them, and cheap!

As if both sides don't have to furnish ID to vote. You guys are unbelievable.

[Wondergirl]

There are NO reasons why an eligible voter cannot easily obtain an id.

Let me introduce you to all the fixed-income homebound and bedbound people I took library books to since 1993.

[talaniman]

No crying on my part, I fully understand your desperation to get a right wing puppet in the Oval office. I leave the crying, and hollering to you guys, and go help granny vote, like she has for YEARS.

[speechlesstx]

Let me introduce you to all the fixed-income homebound and bedbound people I took library books to since 1993.

That have no ID?