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
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
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 from Basic Books, with over 100 pages of new material.
He may be reached through his blog at markcrispinmiller.com. A movie based on his
off-Broadway show, A Patriot Act, is available on DCD at www.patriotnation.com.
If I have to go out and get a voter ID card why can't everyone else? Isn't getting a voter ID card similar to getting a social security card, a driver's license, a credit card, a preferred customer card, a school ID card, a community swimming pool ID, food stamp ID card, etc? If someone is so out of touch with getting any kind of ID card that they are unable to get an voter's ID card even with special allowances being made for them maybe they should not be voting to determine who represents them. These peoplemight as well go into voting place, if they can find it, and throw darts at a dartboard with the candidate's names afixed.
Are Democratic voters the only ones too damn dumb to figure out how to get an ID card? How hard can it be? If the Democrats are so afraid that they need the total ignoramous vote in order to win an election then they have more problems than they can imagine. Don't make me ask if only total ignoramouses only vote Democratic.
by
Mad Jayhawk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 305 comments)
on Monday, April 28, 2008 at 10:40:57 PM
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
