April 29, 2008
5:55 AM
It wasn't even close if you think about it; the Star's characterization
of it as a fractured opinion has more to do with some of the
concurrences from several conservative justices urging yet more
stringent voter ID measures.
From the
Indy Star:
WASHINGTON
— The Supreme Court, in a fractured decision, upheld an Indiana law
today that requires voters show a photo ID issued by the federal or
state government.
“States should have the ability to implement
appropriate and constitutional steps to protect their electoral systems
from fraud,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said in response.
“We can move forward in Indiana with a process that provides
constitutional protections to its citizens protecting their vote from
potential fraudulent activity.”
Indiana next votes in the May 6 primary that is expected to set a record for turnout in a presidential election year.
Richard
L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an expert
on election law, called the decision a significant win for backers of
voter identification laws.
Opponents had argued that the law,
considered the toughest voter ID statute in the nation, places
substantial practical and financial burdens on voters and is aimed at
fixing a type of election fraud that rarely occurs.
The state said the law imposes minimal, if any, interference and increases public confidence in the integrity of the elections.
The
court agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens
and Anthony Kennedy wrote that because Indiana’s cards are free, the
inconvenience of getting one does not qualify as a substantial burden
on most voters’ right to vote.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence
Thomas and Samuel Alito, who sided with the majority for different
reasons, did not recognize that opening.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
Challengers,
who included the Indiana Democratic Party, said the law is particularly
hard on the poor, the elderly, minorities and others who might be less
likely to own a driver’s license or passport and more likely to vote
Democratic.
The law, passed in 2005, was previously upheld by a federal judge and by a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
A
survey released earlier this year by American University’s Center for
Democracy and Election Management found that more than two-thirds of
registered voters in Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland would trust the
election system more if voters had to show an ID. About 1.2 percent of
those surveyed lacked a government-issued photo ID, which the center’s
co-director said shows the photo ID requirement is not a serious
concern.
Poor Dan Parker.
Couldn't care less
about the Democrat Marion County Clerk demonstrably disenfranchising
thousands of voters in the 2007 municipal primary, but cared so much
about a case where not a single actual disenfranchised voter could be
found?
Pathetic, and the Supreme Court saw it for what it was.
Original Article by Scott Fluhr From HoosierPundit