To me it’s absurd that anyone would challenge a law requiring a voter to prove his or her identity with a legal government photo id with a current address. How could anyone argue that the requirement of acquiring and presenting a valid id at the polls is too burdensome? News flash, the Presidential election this year is on November 4th. Sometime over the next 6 months it might be a good idea to secure a valid state id in order to vote in states that require one.
The SCOTUS Blog has excellent coverage on the ruling here. Their coverage includes:
The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters. The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls “voter fraud,” and the Court’s ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part. The main opinion said states have a valid interest in preventing voting by those not entitled to do so, even if there is no specific proof of that kind of fraud in the state.
While the Court’s main opinion said it was “fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role” in enacting the photo ID law, it went on to say that that law was neutral in its application and was adequately supported by the justifications the state had offered.
Of course, liberals are up in arms over this decision. Politico has coverage of liberal politicians and organizations calling the ruling unfair:
“The voting process needs to as unencumbered as possible, and requiring a photo identification disenfranchises those citizens who might otherwise never have a need for identification–particularly in rural, poor, and minority communities,” said Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. “This is a violation of our voting rights – and a deliberate attack on democracy.”
John Payton, president and executive director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, offered a similar concern. “I think what we know from this opinion, what we can be confident of, is perhaps tens of thousands of eligible African-American voters will not be allowed to vote this year because this law has been upheld. That’s particularly disturbing because this is one of the most important election cycles we’ve ever seen in this country.”
John Payton makes an erroneous statement because if under Indiana laws a voter is eligible they will have a valid state id. Payton was looking to the Supreme Court to override the decision of the state and set a dangerous precedent where states would not have the right to define their own laws regarding voter validation.
Later in the article, Politico quotes conservative politicians who rightly agree with the decision:
Republicans, for their part, were uniformly positive about Monday’s ruling. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the decision will give Americans “renewed faith in their government’s ability to conduct fair and honest elections.”
House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), whose state saw its photo ID law struck down by a state court, was similarly ebullient.
“By a convincing majority of six-to-three, the Supreme Court today affirmed a principle the American people have overwhelmingly supported for some time: asking citizens to produce a simple form of identification before voting is neither unreasonable nor unconstitutional – and if it helps impede voter fraud, absolutely necessary to ensure the basic integrity of the democratic process,” Blunt said in a statement.
