By the logic I am seeing in the many threads here, anything that remotely inconveniences someone is equivalent to "voter disenfranchisement." Yet, there are many aspects of the voting process that are inconvenient and require advance planning on the part of the voter. One must first register to vote. Surely, having to go to the trouble to register in advance is burdensome to some. It may, in fact, prevent them from casting votes. Does that mean we should not register voters and simply let everyone just show up on election day? No, that would be silly. Some people live out-of-state during elections. They must go to the awful trouble of registering, obtaining, filling out, and mailing an absentee ballot. If they forget to meet the deadline, oops! They can't vote! Surely, some would consider that burdensome to the point of disenfranchisement. Shouldn't forgetful people still be allowed to vote? No, that's silly, too. Election day can't last all year! It is necessary for the proper running of our system. So, really, I don't see how requiring the advance obtainment of an ID card is any different or more burdensome than the other advance measures that must be taken in order to vote. Some people will complain about anything.

I used to think that way, but I deal with quite a few old and elderly people, and I would not be surprised if some of them don't have a picture ID.

To be sure, almost all of these are not high functioning people, and some may be demented. Most of them don't vote, but some of them seem to vote what they "always voted for", or they just vote without any insight.

Although I personally find uninformed voting deplorable and would consider giving informed people a little more weight in the process, right now we have an election system that is supposed to be egalitarian. Therefore, I do think that there is an element of disenfranchisement (?) when you ask for an ID when this wasn't a requirement for decades.

[Although I personally find uninformed voting deplorable and would consider giving informed people a little more weight in the process, right now we have an election system that is supposed to be egalitarian. Therefore, I do think that there is an element of disenfranchisement (?) when you ask for an ID when this wasn't a requirement for decades.]

This is a joke, right?

Janny,

Your argument might have merit if the law addressed a real problem but there has not been even one documented case of in person voter fraud in Indidana history. Given this fact the law is unnecessary.

Only Republicans voted for this law. Is this because Republicans are for fairer elections while Democrats like to cheat? The evidence shows just the opposite to be true <link> at least in recent history.

The Republicans who are the biggest purveyors of voter suppression by far thought this would be a great opportunity to get one more tool to deny votes to mostly poor and overwhelmingly Democratic voters.

[Your argument might have merit if the law addressed a real problem but there has not been even one documented case of in person voter fraud in Indidana history. Given this fact the law is unnecessary. ]

How would you reliably tell if people were commiting voter fraud or not if you didn't require ID's to vote?

[Only Republicans voted for this law. Is this because Republicans are for fairer elections while Democrats like to cheat? The evidence shows just the opposite to be true <link> at least in recent history.]

Rolling Stone is your source? Seriously? LOL!

As Justice Breyer notes in particular, this is not just an "id" law, but one more strigent than other states.

-j

the true conservative:

[Your argument might have merit if the law addressed a real problem but there has not been even one documented case of in person voter fraud in Indidana history. Given this fact the law is unnecessary. ]

How would you reliably tell if people were commiting voter fraud or not if you didn't require ID's to vote?

That's why you sign your signature and it is checked to see if it matches. What's more difficult; getting a fake ID or mememorizing and forging a signature in person?

[Only Republicans voted for this law. Is this because Republicans are for fairer elections while Democrats like to cheat? The evidence shows just the opposite to be true <link> at least in recent history.]

Rolling Stone is your source? Seriously? LOL!

The article cites multiple sources for the listed information so you don't need to to take their word for it (or mine for that matter.) Even Fox "news" had exit polls that showed Kerry winning big. Don't you find it odd how exit polls are so very reliable in every case BUT this one.

[That's why you sign your signature and it is checked to see if it matches. What's more difficult; getting a fake ID or mememorizing and forging a signature in person?]

Well, I don't know about where you live, but in my district the poll workers are almost exclusively elderly volunteers. I seriously doubt that any of them have been trained in the science of handwriting analysis.

[The article cites multiple sources for the listed information so you don't need to to take their word for it (or mine for that matter.) Even Fox "news" had exit polls that showed Kerry winning big. Don't you find it odd how exit polls are so very reliable in every case BUT this one.]

Haven't the exit polls been wrong more times than right in this Democratic primary season so far?

Joe_JP:

As Justice Breyer notes in particular, this is not just an "id" law, but one more strigent than other states.

-j

Ummm . . . In Indiana a driver's license costs $12, and if you don't drive, the state will issue you an ID for free. What exactly makes our law so stringent?

True conservative.

My state (Washington) matches the signatures with an electronic scanner. If the signatures appear to be suspect they are discarded and are looked at more closely by a real person and if that person feels that the signature doesn't match then the vote isn't counted.

As for the exit polls not matching this time? Maybe the Repbulicans are playing with the results this time as well to keep Obama and Hillary fighting for as long as possible? A close and contentious race can only help the Republicans so it does make sense.

Of course it could be that Hillary's team is hacking the machines. She seems to be like the Republicans in that she'll stop at nothing to "win" and election. I kind of doubt this though. If Hillary's folks are hacking the machines they've been doing a pretty poor job.

Because absent a photo ID, your voting franchise is deleted. You have no other options.

And I just don't see where the US Constitution allows a state to override the voting franchise so drastically for an imagined problem

Signatures in polling records are a public document and can be investigated post-hoc. Thus any mismatch in signatures does not rely on your strawman "untrained elderly" but is open to challenge by anyone, including the GOP's effort to restrict voting franchise. And yet no study has found any such in person fraud in anything approaching even a measurable amount.

Why do you want to restrict the right of representation so greatly? Don't you believe in the founding principle of the Revolutionary war of

"No Taxation Without Representation"?

Or does that only apply to landed white males in they eyes of conservatives?

I cited Breyer's dissent. Souter's dissent also deals with the issue. You can read their discussion. But, some honestly don't seem to want to believe there is a problem, so assume it away.

The Constitution bars poll taxes (in some cases, expressly, in others, implicitly), for example, and a $12 fee to vote is enough. And, as the two dissents note, the procedures in place to get the id for the poor etc. and religious objectors to photographs are in practice complex, and a burden on the right to vote. Others have discussed this issue in the past on the fray, e.g., how actually dealing with the bureaucracy to get these things in practice is no easy thing as anyone who deals with it knows in a common sense way.

[again, as the dissents note, if the system of handing out id was handled differently, it might be workable. I say 'might' but anyway, it is more restrictive, including more restrictive than the Carter/Baker Commission suggested (commission cited by the plurality in support of ruling)]

A fundamental right that doesn't warrant such burdens for non-problems or tiny ones that can be dealt in less restrictive ways as spelled out by others.

-j

You pasted a whole paragraph. Where do you think is the joke?

degsme:

Because absent a photo ID, your voting franchise is deleted. You have no other options.

And I just don't see where the US Constitution allows a state to override the voting franchise so drastically for an imagined problem

It's easier to get a photo ID then it is to register to vote. Should we get rid of that requirement too?