April 28, 2008
Student Group Decries Court Decision in Indiana Voting Law Case
Advocates for student voters issued a statement condemning the Supreme Court’s decision today that upheld Indiana’s law that requires voters to show photo identification.
At issue in the decision was whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud end up disenfranchising large groups of Americans who might lack proper documents to prove they are eligible to vote, according to CNN.
The Student Association for Voter Empowerment argued that the law sets a troubling precedent for students voters. It said that several college students testified last summer about their inability to prove where they lived for voting purposes because their photo identification was from a different part of the state or another state entirely.
Photo identification laws, the group said, can therefore prevent out-of-state college students from registering in the district where they attend college, especially since substitutions for a photo ID are also not easily obtainable because colleges and universities generally pay utility and other bills for students who live in dormitories.
Sara Hebel | Posted on Monday April 28, 2008 | PermalinkComments
Previous: UConn Students Ghostbust Dead Voters
Next: Obama 'Out of His League' With Tar Heel Basketball Players
I thought it was a very WISE decision. The least we can do is ask folks to show ID to vote!
OsiSpeaks.com
— KYJurisDoctor Apr 28, 07:49 PM #
Dear KYJurisDoctor,
I just went ot your blogspot and find that you have nothing to do with the truth or even half the truth, much less the whole truth. Your but one more nut case with an internet connection.
— appalled Apr 28, 09:11 PM #
We generally require people who want to cash a check, use a credit card (in many places), or buy a beer to show a photo ID, because fraud increases costs for everyone. Voter fraud also raises costs and requires at least as much vigilance.
— S. Britchky Apr 29, 09:40 AM #
Before one goes off half cocked, one might try actually reading the opinion of the Court. And noting that it was written by Justice Stevens, not generally regarded by informed people as a Rousing Reactionary, and not one interested in disfranchising (NOT *disENfranchising) anybody who legitimately has the franchise.
— Joseph F Foster Apr 29, 09:42 AM #
I wonder why nearly all European countries and most other countries require ID for voting. Gee, any idea? On the ohter hand, since America is the best country in the world, there is no danger of voter fraud here, right? Sure, right. Like south Chicago in 1960, when it put JFK into the White House. C’mon, guys, give us a break. Touch base with reality now and then.
What WOULD be a shame, of course, is the possibility that the voters who took the time and trouble to vote in primaries in Michigan and Florida will not have their votes counted. THAT’S disenfranchisement.
# 2, “your”? Huh?
— no voter fraud here, right? Apr 29, 09:44 AM #
Re: #5 European and many other countries have national identity cards, which makes requiring ID for voting less discriminatory than partisan-engineered voter ID laws in the US, as the Indiana law clearly is.
— Steve Apr 29, 04:21 PM #
Vote fraud is a Republican shibboleth, based on an irrational and unproven belief that millions of illegal aliens are voting illegally for Democrats. The Republican party is about two clicks away from total fascism, and given the chance, Madman McCain will become the first American dictator. He’s sold his soul to the devil.
— first marci Apr 29, 04:48 PM #
Think of all the things you need state-issued ID to do. I have trouble believing that people not interested in doing any of those things are especially interested in voting. This decision isn’t the tragedy it’s being made out to be.
— anonymous Apr 29, 05:09 PM #
I can’t believe what I am reading in these blogs. How difficult is it in your state to go to the DMV and obtain an ID card. Not very difficult at all. So why is it, that you want people who can’t identify themselves voting? For those students who want to hang on to their drivers license from another state, could probably pick up an ID card where they are going to school. Now they could vote in both states.
— Ross Apr 29, 06:15 PM #
It is a fact that where the Republican party gains control of both houses of the state legislature and the governor’s chair, they move legislation to suppress the vote of the elderly, the poor, and minorities in general. I happen to be a retired Political Scientist living in Florida, the state with a rather clear reputation for vote suppression. Crafting legislation that “on its face” appears to be reasonable and targeted at what can be construed as a legitimate purpose” requires skills that the Republicans have honed in the last several decades. In 1968, when I was living in Arizona, the Republican party decided to challenge every Chicano voter who had moved from one precinct to another and had not changed registration. This was a perfectly legal tactic, but it was not honorable. Happily, the Democratic party mailed its last direct mail “First Class, If Not Deliverable, Return to Sender.” Thus, on election day, the Republicans were told that the Democratic party had in hand evidence to challenge Republican voters, and if the Republicans challenged a single Chicano, we would challenge their voters. The Republicans stopped their challenges. By the way, I grew up in the South and remember (sadly) the worst disenfranchisement of all, when white Democrats in power denied the vote to Blacks. The great sadness of today’s Supreme Court decision is that it bestows legitimacy on a practice designed to keep “the most vulnerable” and the “least of these” from voting. I grieve that honorable justices voted to approve this tactic.
Don Freeman
— Donald M. Freeman Apr 29, 07:03 PM #
Interesting Issue I.D.‘s —- My daughter who has several photo I.D.‘s including a Drivers License, and a passport since birth —- could not vote in the last elections.
Why couldn’t she vote? Because she was attending college in MA (Mount Holyoke College), and her I.D.‘s were from Illinois (her home state). She could not vote in MA because she was not a MA resident —- And, she could not vote in IL —- because IL does not allow absentee ballots for first time voters.
Solutions —— no easy ones, changing her license had several ramifications, including but not limited to auto insurance (costs go up as she gets off family policies), future education plans (she loses in-state tuition benefits when she does her Masters in IL —- which she is now doing), etc.
The option of missing school and travelling from MA to IL —— clearly has its drawbacks, which certainly are not minor.
— zahid Apr 30, 09:28 AM #
Given that those same students could not enter their university’s library without showing their university picture ID, their protests ring hollow. The students who live away from school could not get a plane ticket or train ticket to school or home without said picture ID. It seems to be that in a democracy it is fair to ask a person seeking to cast a vote if they are indeed the person who is registered to cast it.
As to vote fraud being a myth, First Marci, check out Chicago where on more than one occasion I’ve shown up at my polling place only to find that I had already voted that day! Or at least someone the Democratic precinct captain had sent in had voted for me. ACORN has been found guilty of such fraud across the nation, and the ACORN voters never check Republican when they cast their vote.
— Michael Apr 30, 06:02 PM #
who has read the law?
DO YOU REALIZE THIS LAW ALLOWS ABSENTEE VOTING WITHOUT ID?
But it puts very strong restrictions on first time voters. You not only need ID, you need Indiana ID.
to get indiana ID, you have to re-register your car in Indiana, and change your drivers license to Indiana.
This type of law would also cause a problem for retired people with two residences. – Who claim one state as a residence, but have a car registered in the other state.
It is completely absurd. It can cost up to $80 and 10 weeks to get a birth certificate from another state. The law does not just require ID, it requires a specific limited set of ID –
BUT REQUIRES NO ID FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS -And absentee ballots are the ones most vulnerable to fraud…
What a bunch of rot. Clearly a voter supression law.
— sandy May 5, 09:48 PM #
Do some of you realize that its not that these peole dont have a state ID. Its that some of these people dont have a state ID from that particular state they are living in. When you get a new ID from a new state you generally need, along with other documents, a utility bill or a bank statement showing proof of residency. If your a college student and living in a dorm, your not paying utility bills. And if they dont have a bank account then they are screwed again. As for buying liquor or doing anything that requires ID, all you need is a STATE issued ID. This means an ID from ANY state in the US. In order to vote, once again you need a state ID from that particular state that you are living in.
— Raphael May 6, 09:25 PM #
I live in Europe (Ireland) and we have no national identity card here. You must produce ID to vote. That can be a passport or driver’s license. If you have neither you must bring two formal pieces of mail – bills, bank statements – showing that you reside where you say you reside. I see nothing wrong with this.
And, you must put yourself on the voting register and each year you are required to check that your details are correct (unchanged). If there’s an error in the register you almost certainly will NOT be allowed to vote and that’s tough. You’re obliged to check. I see nothing wrong with this either.
— John May 8, 10:07 AM #