Will the issue of voter ID laws, requiring voters to have a photo ID, be resolved in time for the November elections? Will the requirement of a government-issued photo ID be put to rest?
In April 2006, a federal judge upheld Indiana’s law on voter identification, the strictest in the nation, saying there was no evidence that it would prevent any voter from having his ballot counted.
But on Election Day last November, Valerie Williams became that evidence, according to lawyers in a case that will be argued Wednesday before the Supreme Court. After Ms. Williams grabbed her cane that day and walked into the polling station in the lobby of her retirement home to vote, as she has done in at least the last two elections, she was barred from doing so.
The election officials at the polling place, whom she had known for years, told her she could not cast a regular ballot. They said the forms of identification she had always used — a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver’s license — were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.
“Of course I threw a fit,” said Ms. Williams, 61, who was made to cast a provisional ballot instead, which, according to voting records, was never counted. Ms. Williams — who has difficulty walking — said she was not able to get a ride to the voting office to prove her identity within 10 days as required under the law, and her ballot was discarded.
The incident is at the heart of the highly anticipated case, which challenges the constitutionality of the Indiana law and, according to Daniel P. Tokaji, a professor of law at Ohio State University, is “the most important case involving the mechanics of election administration in decades.”
The case goes before the Supreme Court just as the 2008 presidential primaries are beginning. The court will deliver a decision by late June, in time to affect the November elections.
Right. Disenfranchisement of older, poorer, eligible voters. Of course, it helps the rethugs to sleep at night knowing that many of those votes being disenfranchised are democrats. The NYT goes on:
Supporters of the law, most of them Republicans, say a requirement for a state photo identification card is a prudent step toward curbing voter fraud. They say the requirement helps to restore confidence in the voting process by removing the potential for fraud, though Indiana has never cited a case of “voter impersonation,” which is what the law is supposed to prevent.
Rightie-o. Restore confidence is limited to voter impersonation? You would think that rethugs are really worried about voter impersonation, while the likes of Ann Coulter commit voter fraud and has not been prosecuted, or while the rethugs purge thousands of folks from the voter rolls. No, this case isn’t only about voter impersonation, it is about continuing to destroy voter confidence with the right hand, while the other hand is busily waving over paperless electronic voting machines, and trying to get you to believe there is nothing wrong with un-auditable and unsecured machines.
But, I digress, what will be really important, and will ultimately impact each and every one of us in November (or before) will be how the Roberts court rules. Will the far-right fringe of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and unhinged Thomas uphold the previously designed SCOTUS test of limited hurdles before voters, or will they support the ruling-class-elitism of the rethugs? Most importantly, in which basket will Kennedy place his eggs?
[...] more likely to vote, and are also very likely to have their votes disenfranchised with the growing Voter ID acts gripping [...]