Washington, D.C. — The Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold the nation's strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before casting a ballot.
The justices are faced with a partisan dispute that echoes the bitterly divided decision that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush. Now, as then, the court seemed divided along ideological lines.
Wednesday's arguments were over a challenge to an Indiana law, passed in 2005, that is backed by Republicans as a prudent way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups oppose the law as unconstitutional and call it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters - those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
jmadison (anonymous) says…
The woman often cited as having voting problems in Indiana due to ID problems was registered to vote in both Florida and Indiana at the same time--http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.txt.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Requiring voters to prove who they say they are is the easiest, most common sense step we can take to ensuring fairer elections.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"The woman often cited as having voting problems in Indiana due to ID problems was registered to vote in both Florida and Indiana at the same time-"
Anybody who has ever moved from one state to another has likely been registered in two states at the same time, which almost certainly numbers in the millions, but there is zero indication of this leading to vote fraud.
"I guess Liberals are not concerned about voter fraud."
We should all be worried about voter fraud, but there is absolutely no record of the kind vote fraud, ever, that this law is supposed to prevent. It's a cure in search of a disease, which makes it pretty clear that its real intent is to suppress those voters likely to vote the "wrong" way.
freeordie (anonymous) says…
Well said Bozo.
gayokay (anonymous) says…
Provisional ballots were made for just such situations.
Dolly, nobody is saying nonwhites are helpless or less capable.
Putting a restriction on voting that costs money, time away from a job, transportation costs, perhaps child care expenses is tatamount to a poll tax.
Some impoverished persons must live a transitory existence to survive do they deserve the right to vote as American Citizens?
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
homosexualokay,
The ID is free. Your argument that "money, time away from a job, transportation costs, perhaps child care is tantamount to a poll tax" is circular because it takes all of those to a) register to vote, and b) go to vote.