The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: bijou on January 09, 2008, 02:19:21 PM
-
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold the nation's strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before casting a ballot.
...
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.
But Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the court, did not sound persuaded that the challengers had made their case.
``You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?'' Kennedy said near the end of the lively session. Kennedy did, however, voice concern over some aspects of obtaining an ID, including the difficulty the poor have in getting the birth certificates that are needed to get photo ID.
...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7211739,00.html
-
though the primitives see it a different way
brooklynite (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 02:49 PM
Original message
High Court Wary Of Striking Voter ID Law
Source: AP
The Supreme Court appeared reluctant Wednesday to strike down the nation's strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before being allowed to cast a ballot.
The justices heard arguments over an Indiana law, passed in 2005, that's backed by Republicans as a prudent way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups challenging the law as unconstitutional 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.
"You want us to invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience?" Justice Anthony Kennedy said near the end of an hour-long argument. Kennedy, often a key vote, appeared more willing than some to consider changes to the law.
More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Wednesday's case should be decided by late June, in time for the November elections.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/09/supremecourt/...
acmavm (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. 'Minimal inconvenience'? How elitist. And what a crock.
Roland99 (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hmm....Indiana went over 20% in favor of Bush. Repubs going after Repubs?
Edited on Wed Jan-09-08 03:20 PM by Roland99
HA! As if.
-
WTF problem do people having to PROVE they can vote before they actually, oh, I don't know, VOTE? :whatever:
-
Little bastard
ThomWV (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-09-08 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. This Court will be split 5/4 of dam near every case it hears
Edited on Wed Jan-09-08 03:19 PM by ThomWV
Not to wish hateful things but if Thomas were to have a Stroke and Scalia grabbed his chest just before he slumped over it wouldn't bother me a bit. Roberts has that brain thing going on and we can only hope it will lead to his early return to his dear sweet lord and savior. Our best hope for Alito is a lightening strike or maybe that sobbing wife of his will drive him to do murder and that will take him off the bench.
Dream on Alice ...
-
Does one have to prove one's identity to get welfare in Indiana ...
-
i don't know why they are so huffy. We all know that the govt will hand-hold those that need to get ID. It's not like it will be some super-secret process that costs thousands of dollars. They just want something to bitch about.
-
WASHINGTON – On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.
Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also
claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.
Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.†She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she¹s never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.
Subsequently, Ewing became a sort-of poster child for the opposition when the Indiana League of Women Voters (ILWV) told media that the problems Ewing had voting that day shows why the high court should strike it down.
But Indiana Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita said Monday that Ewing’s tale illustrates exactly why Indiana needs the law. “This shows that the Indiana ID law worked here, which also calls into question why the critics are so vehemently against this law, especially with persons like this, who may not have a legal right to vote in this election,†Rokita said.
D'oh! :thatsright:
http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.txt
-
No ID to vote? OK! Then how about No ID to take a loan out in your name?
Oh Sh*t! Better let me think about that.
-
``You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it's a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?'' Kennedy said near the end of the lively session.
Love that quote.
-
Just in time for the 2008 election.
-
Back in high school, I wrote a story about a guy who was born with no fingerprints. The State found out about this unusual guy. They began to pin on him all the unsolved crimes where no fingerprint evidence had been discovered. The State decided, for the sake and safety of society, the guy should die.
Maybe the time has come for The State to take a close look at those too stupid to obtain the proper forms of identity necessary to vote. I don't think anyone will miss the ID-less. They obviously have not been participating in society anyway.