With the new term scheduled to start this coming Monday, the Supreme Court has already accepted 17 cases to be heard thus far, among them is the issue of a voter id law in the State of Indiana. Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day. Lawmakers felt this legislation was needed in order to prevent possible voter fraud from occurring. Opponents of this law feel it is a deterrent against poor and minority voters who largely vote Democrat.

SF Gate has the story:

The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana. The party argued that those voters tend to be Democrats.

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Georgia’s voter identification law, saying the statute does not impose a significant burden on the right to vote.

“The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes,” Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, “Let’s not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic.”

Anyone who has read my prior articles can easily deduce I am in agreement with the lower courts majority opinion in this matter. With an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country there is no way to be certain they are not casting ballots unless their is a requirement for individuals to show Government issued identification prior to voting.

The argument against voter id laws both at the State level as well as at the National level has been that voter id requirements arWith the new term scheduled to start this coming Monday, the Supreme Court has already accepted 17 cases to be heard thus far, among them is the issue of a voter id law in the State of Indiana. Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day. Lawmakers felt this legislation was needed in order to prevent possible voter fraud from occurring. Opponents of this law feel it is a deterrent against poor and minority voters who largely vote Democrat.

SF Gate has the story:

The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana. The party argued that those voters tend to be Democrats.

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Georgia’s voter identification law, saying the statute does not impose a significant burden on the right to vote.

“The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes,” Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, “Let’s not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic.”

Anyone who has read my prior articles can easily deduce I am in agreement with the lower courts majority opinion in this matter. With an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country there is no way to be certain they are not casting ballots unless their is a requirement for individuals to show Government issued identification prior to voting. The argument against voter id laws both at the State level as well as at the National level has been that voter id requirements are equivalent to a poll tax and therefore unconstitutional.

This is a ridiculous argument predicated on the belief that poor and minority voters do not currently have a drivers license or other State issued identification, and it will be a financial burden if they were required to obtain one. This argument is quickly shot down when one looks at the Indiana Secretary of State website which states “To obtain a free ID card for voting purposes from any BMV branch, you will need to supply the necessary documentation”

Obviously if the Government is giving you something free of charge it can no way be associated with a tax.
e equivelant to a poll tax and therefore unconstitutional. This is a rediculous argument predecated on the belief that poor and minority voters do not currently have a drivers license or other State issued identification, and it will be a financial burden if they were required to obtain one. This argument is quickly shot down when one looks at the Indiana Secretary of State website which states “To obtain a free ID card for voting purposes from any BMV branch, you will need to supply the necessary documentation”

Obviously if the Government is giving you something free of charge it can no way be associated with a tax.

Sphere: Related Content

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Constitution, Election 2008, Supreme Court