General News

SCOTUS upholds Indiana photo ID law

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

- Advertisement -
This decision was supposed to come in June, but Roberts et al. didn't want to wait that long. Why? Perhaps because they want the law in place when Indiana Democrats turn out to (try to) vote in their primary on May 6 (next Tuesday). And certainly because they want to give the GOP in other states a chance to ram through laws like Indiana's. (There are already similar laws in several other states. They aren't as strict as Indiana's--so maybe now they can be made still more draconian in time for the election.)

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
 
- Advertisement -


Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana

Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
- Advertisement -

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.

 

Mark's new book, Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008, a collection 14 essays on Bush/Cheney's election fraud since (and including) 2000, is just out, from Ig Publishing. He is also the author of Fooled Again: The Real Case for Electoral Reform, which is now out in paperback (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

This bill will kill small farms, and wreck our food supply

Scott Walker Goes To Chicago, Gets His Mic Checked! (Must-See)

Notorious Saudi prince is Fox News Corp's 4th-largest voting shareholder

Was Prop 8 Actually Defeated??

Peter B. Collins going off the air

Obama won by MILLIONS MORE than we've been told

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)
If I have to go out and get a voter ID card why ca... by Mad Jayhawk on Monday, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:40:57 PM
if everyone who lived here were as smart as you ar... by Mark Crispin Miller on Monday, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:47:14 PM