SCOTUS upholds Indiana photo ID law

As Steve Rosenfeld has reported (in, among other articles, his essay in the new book Loser Take All), the aim of steps like this one--by SCOTUS and the DoJ--is to pre-empt as many votes as possible. In other words, it isn't only the machines that will be used to slash the Democratic vote. It's also the strategic use of neo-Jim Crow laws and regulations, meant to neutralize as many adverse votes as possible before the fact.

In short, the more votes you undo before Election Day, the less the party must rely on those notorious machines. A "win-win" for the party--and a fatal lose-lose for American democracy.

Will Obama make some noise about this heinous move? (I rather doubt that Clinton will.) When will his campaign wake up, and face what's happening?

MCM

 

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scot...

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed [?] the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

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