The integrity of the ballot box
The Supreme Court today ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring voters to present a photo identification -- available free of charge -- is constitutional. The opinion was written by John Paul Stevens.
I too am shocked.
Indiana has a "valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" said Justice John Paul Stevens in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Stevens said that Indiana's desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law was designed to combat. Evidence of voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements also is scant. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver's license serves as the identification.
The law does not apply to absentee balloting, where election experts agree the threat of fraud is higher.
First things first. We can address absentee vote fraud next.
All the usual suspects are, of course, outraged.
Unfortunately, only three justices voted to hold the law unconstitutional. The other six fell into two groups. Three — Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts — signed a lead opinion that set a disturbingly low bar for what sort of interference with voting the Constitution permits. A second opinion, signed by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, was worse. It argued for upholding all but the most severe and unjustified burdens on voting. Richard Hasen, a Loyola Law School professor, notes that if the court had taken this opinion’s approach in 1966, it is not clear it would have overturned the poll tax.
As to that last statement: Bolshevik Storytelling.
This is a good, first step to securing the integrity of the ballot box. Those on the left want every vote to count -- including those cast fraudulently. That disenfranchises legal voters -- something they care less about.
0 comments on “The integrity of the ballot box”
Tags
I go to my public library (in Indiana) and am required to show I.D. to check out materials; I present a check at a local store (in Indiana) and am required to present I.D. to verify I am who I claim to be. But, in order to exercise the most important function of a citizen (i.e. cast a vote), somehow all bets should be 'off'?
The ONLY reason people (Democrats)object to a voter I.D. requirement is because they wish to permanently perpetuate voting fraud. This crap about how tough it is to vote when you're poor, or how difficult it is to get gov't I.D. It's just that - crap! Go to any branch of the Indiana DMV, and it'll issue you a photo I.D. - FREE OF CHARGE.