Voter ID: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

4 posts / 0 new

I think I've discovered the source of all the Voter ID hullabaloo. News to me, anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

"In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence."

Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population, and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority: "...the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."

I disagree.

But it appears that this case has to be overruled before all these new voter id laws can be challenged, IMO.

EDIT

Apparently someone else posted this last month. I missed it:

http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/pkrieser/blog/2012/07/voter-photo-id-s...

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Note, Justice Setvens not a conservative.

Nor are disenfranchisement claims supported by the empirical facts. In the two states with the longest history of photo ID—Indiana and Georgia—voter turnout actually increased after implementation.14 And, in Georgia, minority turnout increased far more than white turnout.

http://mnbenchbar.com/2012/08/debating-voter-id-a-means-to-increase-confidence-in-elections/

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 5:12 am

Ah, correlation vs. causation.

Just read the stories of people unable to track down the birth cirtificates and marriage licenses.

Those are the real 'emprical facts' that you ignore.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population, and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud.
Amendment XIV

Section 1.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Could someone challenge the constitutionality of the voter ID laws on the fact that these laws do not provide equal protection for all citizens, as Justice John Paul Stevens so wantonly admitted?

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 2:04 pm

Currently Chatting

Our kids are counting on us to reverse austerity.

According to UNICEF, even in the world's richest countires, children remain “the most enduring victims” of the recession. In the last six years, 2.6 million more kids have fallen below the poverty line, and more than half of them live right here in the United States.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system