Disenfranchisement Upheld by The Supremes

The Supremes have done it again. By stepping on state's rights in voting procedures, they are setting the stage for the next selection of president. Isn't it funny how the repuglicans are all so happy with activist judges when they make rulings in their favor? That's why they are repugnant. Stay tuned for the next election swindle, courtesy of John Paul Stevens, a/k/a TRAITOR!
Supreme Court upholds
photo ID voting law
Mon Apr 28, 2008
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification, a decision critics say could keep some blacks, poor people and other traditional Democratic supporters from voting in the November election.
Resolving a partisan political battle, the country's high court voted 6-3 to reject a legal challenge by Democrats that Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law would deter minorities, the elderly and others from casting ballots.
The main opinion agreed with Republican supporters that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud and safeguard public confidence in the integrity of elections. The Bush administration supported the law.
[...] "The effect of the loss ... will begin to be felt next week when Indiana holds its presidential primary using the voter ID law the court has just upheld," said Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University in New York.
The decision could have broad national significance because more than 20 states have adopted voter identification laws and other states are considering similar legislation.
The law requires a government-issued photo ID such as a driver's license to vote in federal, state and local elections.
[...] Reaction to the ruling split along political lines.
[...] "Denying a fundamental right -- the right to vote -- because a person is indigent, lacks a birth certificate or has no access to a vehicle goes against America's better values," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said.
Angela Ciccolo of the NAACP civil rights group said the law would have its greatest impact on voters who are poor, elderly, belong to racial minorities or have disabilities.
The lead opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, held the evidence in the record did not support an attack now on the law's validity.
Three other court members -- conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concurred in the judgment and issued a separate opinion that the law should be upheld because its overall burden was minimal and justified.
Stevens wrote that states had a "valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." He said voter fraud "could affect the outcome of a close election."
He said the law may place a small burden on a limited number of people -- the elderly born out-of-state who may have difficulty in getting the required documents, the homeless or people with a religious objection to being photographed.
Stevens said politics may have been a factor in adopting the law but that alone did not make it unconstitutional. His opinion left open the possibility of future legal challenges by specific voters.
Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. Souter said the law threatened to impose major burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of Indiana residents, especially the poor and the elderly. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00940020080428?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
To be fair, not all republicans are repuglicans. Please see previous post: April 16, 2008 Republican Governor Weighs in on Spending Transparency and REAL ID , REAL ID side effects, By Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, for an op-ed from a man with courage and the ability to think beyond party lines (and the next election).

WWJRD?

TruthDig presents Maria Cocco with an excellent report on the next wave of voter fraud. Keep an eye out for John Roberts, who will show his true colors on this matter.
Justice Is Blind, but Can She Vote?
Posted on Jan 8, 2008
By Marie Cocco
WASHINGTON—The most revealing indicator of the state of our democracy is not to be found in the snowdrifts of New Hampshire but in the marbled chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court. Soon enough, we will discover whether the court under Chief Justice John Roberts will become a partisan tool in the national Republican drive to place constraints on voting that are targeted at those who tend to support Democrats.
Not since the Supreme Court stopped the Florida presidential election recount in 2000 has a voting case been so significant, or so overflowing with partisan bile.
On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge to Indiana’s strict law requiring photo identification in order for a voter to cast a ballot at the polls. The state claims the law is necessary to stop voter fraud. Yet no one—not Indiana officials, not the U.S. Justice Department, which has taken the state’s side in the dispute, nor any commission—has come up with a single case in the state’s history in which an impostor showed up and cast a vote.
[…] studies have repeatedly shown that those least likely to possess photo identification—most commonly a driver’s license—are African-Americans, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. In short, they are more likely to vote Democratic.
[….] The Justice Department is a party to this embarrassment, including in its brief an example of absentee ballot fraud in a mayoral primary. But the Indiana ID law has no bearing on absentee voters. The state still allows absentee ballots to be counted without a photo ID, on the basis of a signature checked against registration rolls. Still, the department argues that the mere “temptation” of voter fraud and the possibility of “undetected” wrongdoing is sufficient to support a law that constrains some legitimate voters from casting a ballot in person.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080108_justice_is_blind_but_can_she_vote/