Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting

[qrayjack]

Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting - By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court's 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved.

The ruling means the ID requirement will be in effect for next week's presidential primary in Indiana, where a significant number of new voters are expected to turn out for the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
MORE

*Ohhhhhhh... YES!

[MamaCat]

It's about time! I hope every polling place in every state begins to check photo ID's.

How do they claim that requiring a photo ID places an undo burden on old people and low income individuals? In Indiana, at least, the state will provide a photo ID free of charge to people who do not drive.

This may not eliminate vote fraud, but it will make it a little more complicated.

[Jamble]

Indiana's voter ID law ''threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens,'' Souter said.

Horsepucky!! Today you need ID to buy booze, cash a check, fly in a plane and, in some cases, to use your credit card. I believe that close to 100% of voters engages in at least one of these activities.

[Amawalk John]

A triumph of common sense; a win for the good guys.

I'm more and more inclined to look favorably on putting non-trivial restraints on Justice David H Souter.

His ancestral home in Weare, NH should have been seized by eminent domain and sold to a real estate developer who wanted to convert it into a hotel, suitible hoisting on his petard for voting as he did in Kelo vs. City of New London.

[USA4ever]

Kudos to the Supreme Court. This is one decision they've made that I'm in favor of 100%! Voter fraud is rampant and if this stops even one fraudulent vote from being cast then GOOD! As for all those people claiming it's a 'hardship' to get a photo ID? BULL! If I'm not mistaken I heard on one of the news broadcasts that Indiana will give FREE photo ID's to it's citizens. So that knocks the 'I can't afford it' excuse in the head. And I don't quite understand why it's such a hardship for the elderly or handicapped. If they're able to go to the polls to cast their vote then doesn't it stand to reason that they should be able to arrange to go wherever necessary to get their photo ID?

[FlaJim]

This is really going to cut down on Dem voter turnout in NYC, LA, and Chicago. In the latter case, I'm assuming picture ID is a little more difficult to produce for the dead.

[qrayjack]

This may not eliminate vote fraud, but it will make it a little more complicated.

Which is precisely why the Democrats are going berserk over this ruling.

[Charie]

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

Indiana's voter ID law ''threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens,'' Souter said.

The targets of the law, he said, are ''voters who are poor and old.''

They must be referring to themselves in the latter word.

The SC may think there should be voter ID but the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board thinks it's simply horrible that voters have to be taken advantage of this way. On the other hand, they don't find a whole lot wrong with tire slashing, as long as it's done to Republicans.

[MamaCat]

Anyone who opposes having photo ID to vote must be up to no good. Honest voters will not object to producing indentification.