The court can come up with not even one instance of in person voter fraud in Indiana so the law is addressing a problem that simply does not exist by putting an extra burden on poor voters without driver's licenses. These voters vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats so what this really is voter suppresion by Republicans who, evidence suggests, are the ones who have commited real voter fraud in the recent past.

Diebold voting machines have a record of "errors" that almost invariably favor republicans. In 2004 the exit polls had Kerry winning by 3-4% in Ohio but the "official" results had Bush winning by this same amount.

Exit polls have been shown to be accurate to within 1/2 of 1% so a 6-8% shift in favor of Bush is, to say the least, highly suspicious especially given the fact that in states without these machines the exit poll data and the actual results were virtually identical.

These electronic voting machines use proprietary software and have no paper ballot record so stealing an election is a piece of cake if you know the right people.

Diebold's owners are staunchly Republican but I'm sure that's merely coincidental, right?

Wow! What a statement! I thought the numbers were counted since the dems didn't believe he won the election. And didn't they find it was a big win for Bush? Hmmm.

This has nothing to do with politics, and this ruling most certainly extends past Indiana. You claim a few things, which I address seperately.

1) You claim the ruling puts undue burden on poor voters. This is not correct, since ID's are free in the state of Indiana, and many other states. You could say "Well, what about states which do charge a fee for processing?" But I would reply "If they can afford to own, upkeep, and insure an automobile to begin with, they can afford the 15 dollar driver's licence/ state ID.

2) You claim this ruling to be somehow spurious, since there hasn't been a case of voter fraud in the state's history. Try looking at the big picture. What about states battling illegals, those who are not citizens? Registering to vote without ID only embedds them further into the system.

3) You never address why you think producing a licence/ state ID somehow unduly burdens someone above and beyond voting in the first place. Scalia was right in his opinion: if the voter has made thier way down to vote in the first place, producing ID is not somehow crossing this burden threshold you depict.

4) You state "Diebold voting machines have a record of "errors" that almost invariably favor republicans." What does this have to do with voter ID law?

AlaskaBoy:

This has nothing to do with politics, and this ruling most certainly extends past Indiana. You claim a few things, which I address seperately.

1) You claim the ruling puts undue burden on poor voters. This is not correct, since ID's are free in the state of Indiana, and many other states. You could say "Well, what about states which do charge a fee for processing?" But I would reply "If they can afford to own, upkeep, and insure an automobile to begin with, they can afford the 15 dollar driver's licence/ state ID.

It's the poor people who can't afford a car in the first place so your argument about paying for upkeep and insurance is irrelevant.

2) You claim this ruling to be somehow spurious, since there hasn't been a case of voter fraud in the state's history. Try looking at the big picture. What about states battling illegals, those who are not citizens? Registering to vote without ID only embedds them further into the system.

You have to show an ID to register to vote. This law says that you have to show and ID when you vote. These are two different things. This is also why people have to sign their name when they vote. If it doesn't match with their listed signasture the vote can be thrown out.

3) You never address why you think produc ing a licence/ state ID somehow unduly burdens someone above and beyond voting in the first place. Scalia was right in his opinion: if the voter has made thier way down to vote in the first place, producing ID is not somehow crossing this burden threshold you depict.

The 15th and 24th amendments prohibit discrimination. One of the ways that black people were prevented from voting in the south were poll taxes and "lieracy tests" administered by racist whites. It was funny but blacks could never "pass" the tests from the racist whites.

One thing Republicans have done in recent elections is to "challenge" minority voters in poor neighborhoods. An ID requirement is one more way that they could issue such "challenges" saying that the person doesn't look like their picture. Of course this could be purely arbitrary on the part of the challenger.

Signatures do not show the race of the voter and thus help to prevent this kind of racist "challenge."

4) You state "Diebold voting machines have a record of "errors" that almost invariably favor republicans." What does this have to do with voter ID law?

Nothing, and that's the problem. The voting machines have at least the appearance of of being hacked. A law that addresses this problem and required a paper ballot to be printed or outlawed the machines altogether would have addressed a real problem.

The "crime" this law addresses is not a real problem. It is nothing more than a way for Republicans to deny voting rightsto poor and minority voters to win more elections.

With no requirement to show ID when voting, how would it be possible to actually detect many possible forms of in-person voter fraud? With voter turnout usually around 30%, it's twice as likely for someone voting as another person to never be noticed as it is for that person to really show up if the name is chosen at random.

In some states, the registration systems are so porous, it's possible to register one person multiple times (using different permutations of partial/full names), and might even be possible to register someone who doesn't exist at all. Add to that states where registration is allowed up to the day of the election (is there any ID required for that operation? I've never tried it myself).

Further, are there really such a large number of people who live their entire lives without ever obtaining any form of state-issued identification? (and how many of those are tinfoil-hat types who distrust the government so thoroughly that they're unlikely to vote anyway...). I'm assuming the Indiana law would accept an ID card in addition to a Driver's licence.

I thought the whole point of the "motor-voter" law was that the general voter registration system (going to the Post Office, filling out a registration card, and mailing it in without even needing to buy a stamp), but that virtually everone at some point went to the DMV for a license, and therefore we could register the disenfranchised masses without making them bear the crushing burden of taking 5 minutes out of every 2-4 years to fill out the card. Now we're supposed to buy that it's the trip to the DMV that's such a herculean effort on the part of any citizen. In reality, what are the odds that anyone who can't spare the time to stop by a Post Office or get a DMV ID card would take the time to show up to vote anyway?

As mentioned above, ID's are free in most states, and mandatory in all states. You don't have to have a drivers license but in most states you need to have an ID of some sort at all times. Translation, you need to have an ID anyway, so there is no added disadvantage. The argument does not really hold water. As for the argument that no cases have been found.. Well duh! Cases can't be found when you have no right to ask a person for ID. How do you prove they aren't who they say they are? Its circular logic to argue that nobody has been caught. You yourself said that there have been challenges in minority districts in signatures, that’s an indictment that illegal votes are in fact being cast... if they were legal they couldn't be challenged. Ironically your own argument illustrates exactly why we need ID checks.

"It's the poor people who can't afford a car in the first place so your argument about paying for upkeep and insurance is irrelevant."

Sorry, not so. This addresses poor automobile owners. Saying "the poor cannot afford a car" is not true, and you know it. Poor people own cars, and if they do not own a car, can recieve a state ID free. You cannot possibly expect anyone here to believe that in states which do charge a nominal fee for processing licenses and IDs, the poor populous is so unduly burdened that they can't cover a 10 buck ID which lasts for years.

You have to show an ID to register to vote. This law says that you have to show and ID when you vote. These are two different things. This is also why people have to sign their name when they vote. If it doesn't match with their listed signasture the vote can be thrown out.

This only deminishes your first point. The poor can afford to buy an ID to register, but not to vote? Yeah, right. They match every signature. Good one. That proves I am who I say I am. Pop quiz: Why don't banks to that? Answer: it's not adaquate, and you know it. Ever work in polling stations? They match vitals to the record, not just signature: they want a SSN, voter ID number, and/or......wait for it.....Driver's licence/ ID number.

Your history lesson is appreciated, The 15th and 24th amendments prohibit discrimination. One of the ways that black people were prevented from voting in the south were poll taxes and "lieracy tests" administered by racist whites. It was funny but blacks could never "pass" the tests from the racist whites. One thing Republicans have done in recent elections is to "challenge" minority voters in poor neighborhoods. An ID requirement is one more way that they could issue such "challenges" saying that the person doesn't look like their picture. Of course this could be purely arbitrary on the part of the challenger.

You should take a jurisprudence class. While I appreciate the history lesson, this law is nothing like giving basic competency tests to detirmine voter eligability. Racial "discrimination" statutes apply when that group is unduly burdened. You can't state that in this case- every person is given the right and responsibility to carry on thier person a government-issued ID. Poor whites- according to your argument- would be just as unduly burdened, so you can't pull race. To say economic issue is a factor is only a slippery slope. What else, then, could you say unduly burdens the poor when they must pay a fee for something? State taxes? A fishing licence? Bus fare? You can't pick and choose.

Democrats and Republicans alike challenge voter turnout, voting results. To pidgeon hole Conservatives is wrong. If the parties are lawfuly afforded the right to challenge results, they may certainly exersize that right- both of them.

To revisit your voting machine "point"- the methodology in which machines take votes has nothing to do with people proving they are who they claim to be. Machne or paper- neither has one thing to do with the problem this decision addresses- that proper identification is needed to vote. How to tally those votes is an entirely different subject altogether.

My solution to the disenfranchisement:

1. Every registered voter should get a letter explaining what forms of ID are acceptable at the polls, and where/how to get free ID if a person doesn't already have it.

2. Local party officials can get volunteers together and provide transportation to those who don't have a way to get to wherever they need to go for their free ID.

3. Election judges need to be properly trained so THEY know what forms of ID are acceptable, and if there is any reason to challenge someone, what they should do. For example, if the picture in the ID shows a woman with long, blond hair, and the person trying to vote is a bald man, then there is a discrepancy... or if the ID shows someone who's obviously elderly and the person trying to vote is very young... but NOT if the hair length is different in the picture.

4. Something needs to be done about absentee voter fraud. That one's not so easy - but it does need to be addressed, since it is comparatively easier to do.

If you have to show an ID to register to vote, then you already have an ID. How hard is it to actually bring that ID when you vote?

Correcting a problem when it doesn't really exist. Besides voter fraud, we are spending a lot of time doing this. Like Iraq? No WMD's but we are correcting that problem. Gay marriage? Banned in most states by the Defense of Marriage Act. But we need to get it in the state constitutions "just in case". Face it. It's all a manipulation by the powerful to get the right kind of votes, control the wrong kind, and keep the power.

patron002:

As mentioned above, ID's are free in most states, and mandatory in all states. You don't have to have a drivers license but in most states you need to have an ID of some sort at all times.

Is this something new? I can clearly remember throughout the Cold War one the main points about how free we were was that we weren't required to have "papers" at all time like in the Communist Bloc.

I'm actually somewhat startled that "most states" require an ID at all times. Hopefully I don't live in one of those states, since I don't ever carry my wallet when I go running each morning and evening!

So, what exactly is the punishment for not carrying an ID at all times? Do you happen to have a list of states that give out free photo IDs and require IDs at all times?

deebee and KB01 both make excellent points,

This is a non-existant problem like so many other non-issues that the right brings up. It is the republicans who are using voter intimidation to keep poor people from voting. It was in Ohio in 2004 where there were plenty of voting machines in suburban (republican) areas while there were not nearly enough in the poor (democratic) areas. There was a huge disagreemnt with the exit poll and "official" election results and at least the appearance of fraud by the Republicans who "won" Ohio.

There was a large outcry at this suspected fraud and instead of going after the problems (voter intimidation and unverifiable electronic voting machines) the Republicans saw it as an opportunity to deny even more poor voters of their rights to win more elections. Numerous studies have shown that indidividual voter fraud is virtually non-existant.

It's funny that the one recent case of voter fraud was from my state of Washington. The Republicans who lost the election looked long and hard for any instance of voter fraud and appearently found one instance out of the millions of votes cast. They even brought a lawsuit after the election and had it tried before a hand-picked conservative judge and lost badly. The case was dismissed with prejudice <link> and the judge actaully awarded two votes to the Democrat and ultimate winner (gregoire.)

Washington state has a system of checking signatures. A machine does a check first and if the signatures don't seem to match they are kicked out and a real person then looks at them. Many votes are disallowed under this system. In my mind it would be a lot harder to memorize and forge a signature than to bring a fake ID anyway.

This "show me your papers" crap is reminiscent of Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. We live in a free society. We have freedom of movement. We were even able (until Bush) to travel to Canada with just a driver's license. No more. If the right has it's way "Big Brother" will be watching.

"The Republicans saw it as an opportunity to deny even more poor voters of their rights to win more elections."

This seems to be the foundation of your entire argument. Which rights- praytell- have been violated? You say "The Republicans challenge voter results!" Good. If it is thier legal right to do so, and since both parties do it- they will be afforded that right, and should challenge when they will.

Alaska requires voter number, Driver's licence/ ID number, and SSN, thorugh physical proof by one of those means. This is much more adaquete than scribbling your name. What if I don't want to write my name the same way? What if I am under different circumstances when I first write my name? You have already admitted that many votes are thrown out because of this. There is no proof that these were fake/illegal voters- and in fact, I would be more inclined to say that the signature verification would hurt ppor people more.

Yeah right- a machine that checks signatures is somehow more fool-proof than the voting machines themselves? Give us a break. Your type of liberal hysteria that people being made to bring an ID to vote is tanatmount to Nazi Germany is hilarious.

You aren't required to have papers, the papers were quite different from an ID, an ID identifies who you are for the police, papers identified who you were, where you lived, what you did for a living, and most likely where you were going. Its a law, that isn't overly strict, you don't get sent to a work camp if you don't have one, most often they let you off with a warning, especially if your description matches the one in their records. Also, police cannot ask you for your ID at random, if you are caught doing something illegal however the police will ask for your ID... its procedure.