Candidates Respond to Voter ID Ruling

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have responded to today's Supreme Court ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., upholding the Indiana voter id law:


"I disagree with the decision, but we're going to do everything we can in our campaign — I trust that not only the Democratic party but fair-minded Republicans are going to do whatever they can — so that people at the state level can exercise the franchise."


"I have questions about it. Now obviously the law's the law, and has to be followed, but I hope it doesn't in any way suppress or deter voter turnout."

The Brennan Center, which coordinated the amicus briefs, calls the case the most important voting case since Bush v. Gore.


First, what the decision held:

Under Indiana's law, voters must present a government-issued photo ID with an expiration date that has not elapsed. The law does not accept Veterans' IDs, Congressional IDs, student IDs, or work IDs.

Why it's problematic:

Many citizens—disproportionately low-income, minorities, students and seniors—do not have the identification required by Indiana's law.

"In the three years since this case was brought, reliable studies have shown that 10-12% of eligible voting-age Americans do not have voter government-issued photo identification, particularly low-income, minority, senior, and student voters. Unfortunately, some will ignore these facts, and seek to use this ruling to manipulate the rules of the game and block these eligible voters from the ballot box," stated Justin Levitt, counsel at the Brennan Center.

The fight isn't over. The Center calls upon lawmakers to consider the " disenfranchising impacts of ID laws acknowledged in today's decision."

"Today's decision is not the end of the story on voter ID. Although the Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law, it did not say that states must or even should pass restrictive ID laws. Now it's up to legislators and courts in states like Texas, Missouri, and Florida to decide if they are going to follow Indiana's lead and disenfranchise American citizens, or if they're going to protect the right to vote for all Americans as we head into a critical national election," stated Wendy Weiser, Deputy Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. "In doing so, they should keep in mind that the Court left open the possibility of future lawsuits against restrictive ID laws that prevent people from voting.

As for what's next:

First, we do expect that there will be a major push in state legislatures and Congress to pass very restrictive voter ID laws, this year or next. Whatever the merits or demerits of voter ID in theory, these proposals invariably are crafted to impact the poor, minorities, the elderly and others who simply lack the required photo ID. We are working with advocates to make sure they have our research on the impact of ID proposals.

Second, we are moving to strike down other barriers to voting and fair elections. Coincidentally, on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Florida, today we filed a federal lawsuit to strike down that state's restrictions on voter registration groups. The restrictions are so severe the League - hardly a radical fringe group! - has been forced to shut down its registration activities.

....Ultimately, it would be a huge missed opportunity to simply focus on stopping bad laws. ...This should be the time to craft new voter registration laws to make sure that every citizen who wants to vote, can vote. In the coming weeks we will be putting forward a draft proposal for universal voter registration, including Election Day Registration, for Congress and others to consider.

As TChris wrote in 2006, Voter ID is just another bad idea from the GOP.

Big Tent Democrat excerpted highlights from today's opinion here. The full opinion is here (pdf.)

< Supreme Court Grants Cert, Vacates Sentencing Opinion | Karl Rove Gives Obama Six Pointers to Recover and Win >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Disappointing... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:55:33 PM EST
    ...response from both.  

    "I trust that not only the Democratic party but fair-minded Republicans are going to do whatever they can..."

    I don't.  Fair minded Republicans are a myth (as the last 7+ years have shown us).  

    "...I hope it doesn't in any way suppress or deter voter turnout."

    It will.  Typically Democratic voters at that.

    Show a little... (none / 0) (#14)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:25:07 PM EST
    ...backbone and stand up for the people they are supposed to represent for one.

    The time for playing nice with thugs, crooks and criminal is over.  

    What do you want them to do--continue to roll- over and play nice?  



    Obama LOVES to praise Republicans (none / 0) (#31)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:26:27 PM EST
    doesn't he?

    Fair minded and republicans...that's an oxymoron.  His inclusiveness to the GOP only serves that when it comes to VOTING he wants to have it both ways.

    I don't think that Obama is qualified to even make a comment on fair voting practices considering his actions against FL and MI


    I would like them to state the obvious (none / 0) (#47)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:37:04 PM EST
    Which is, that this is a new poll tax, designed by Republicans to deprive honest citizens of their right to vote.

    Is that so hard?


    I've been an election judge in my local (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:08:15 PM EST
    precinct for two election cycles, and it amazed me that most people want to show you some ID - voter card, driver's license, whatever - and seemed puzzled when we would tell them it wasn't necessary.  We did have to ask the month and year of their birth, and in the primary, their party affiliation, but that was it.  If someone were to give a year of birth that seemed inconsistent with their appearance, we were allowed to ask to see some ID - but I never encountered a situation that seemed to call for it.  First-time voters were required to show ID, but that ID could be a voter registration card, student ID, work ID - we had a whole list of what were acceptable proofs of identity.

    I think if states want to impose an ID law that requires that it be government-issued, they ought to have to make provisions for the poor and elderly to obtain them with a minimum of effort.

    I really hate these laws.

    In my northern NJ locality, we have to sign a book (none / 0) (#23)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:10:21 PM EST
    to vote--has our signature from original registration.

    Same in NYC (none / 0) (#27)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:21:13 PM EST
    I've never shown a picture id at a polling place.  Ever.  Good thing, too, as I don't have a drivers' license.

    but in NY you have to show ID to register. (none / 0) (#54)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:07:26 AM EST
    When you go to the polls you just show up and sign in. I really don't have a problem with showing ID, it's no different that cashing a check. You've got to show ID when you cash one or when you pay by check.

    The question is how to get voter an ID that's cost effective for low income folks. If we can't solve this problem it seems that it's going to be real tough to get anything else we dream of done. We have to identify ourselves everyday. Proof of something everyday even when we buy beer. Some stores in NY require you to show ID when you buy alcohol, I'm in my 50's you can pretty much tell I'm way over 21, but I still have to show ID. It seems ridiculous but I also find it ridiculous that in this day and age we're fighting over voter ID when identity theft is rampant. ID's, like food stamps could be issued on an income basis to make it more available. If ID's are the law than states can not prohibit the legitimate access to obtain by making them too expensive, they must provide them or they are interfering with voter rights. It seems the solution is relatively simple, but maybe I'm too much of a simpleton.


    Bad for Americans, good for GOP (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:12:43 PM EST
    As TChris wrote in 2006, Voter ID is just another bad idea from the GOP.

    no, its a good idea for the GOP because anti-American activity disenfranchising legitimate voters is the ONLY way republicans can obtain and hold power to further their abuse of Americans and American ideals for their insidious corrupt purposes.

    Not the only way (none / 0) (#36)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:45:36 PM EST
    They can brainwash the public through the Mouth Piece Media, they can hack the vote through manipulation of electronic voting and vote counting, by manipulation of the ballots themselves, by finding justifications for not counting every vote; they can suppress the vote by threats of arrest and other intimidation, by not enough voting machines and/or broken machines at very busy polling places, by spreading disinformation about the voting process and the polling places.  Lots of ways.

    Why not an ID drive? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    Is there no official ID card in that state other than the license?  South Carolina makes photo IDs for the retarded (my daughter) or the blind (my mother had one).  On the flip side, SC would not comply with the Real ID law and I had to renew passports recently--tho the US relented for the time being.  If there is an official ID card, what are the requirements besides showing up at the office?

    Come to think of it, why is this law not roughly equivalent to the old southern laws about poll tax and literacy.  They were struck down because they disenfranchised a group of people,  Did the state prove that it did not intend to restrict voting rights?

    well, it is also the money (none / 0) (#22)
    by angie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:10:14 PM EST
    I've always had a passport myself, but they are pretty expensive. Driver's licenses and state ID cards are cheaper, of course, but a lot of low income people may not have the luxury of taking a whole day off of work to stand in line at the DMV.  Actually growing up in NOLA (which always required a picture ID to vote for as long as I can remember) it hadn't really occurred to me before this case that other states didn't require a picture ID, but now I do see how it can impact some people. I can understand wanting some ID to curtail voter fraud, but shouldn't that be what your voter registration card is for? Why does it have to be a picture ID -- why not your voter's card and SS card? It is an unfair law and only hurts the people with the least amount of political "clout."

    The majority on the Court (none / 0) (#29)
    by litigatormom on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    seemed to find significant that Indiana would issue a free voter id for residents that don't have a passport or drivers' license.  At least, it was significant in terms of them finding that the statute did not impose a de facto poll tax.

    The Court slid over the fact that some people have to spend money to get copies of their birth certificates....


    They Shoulda Called Alan Shore... (none / 0) (#43)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:36:06 PM EST
    It all depends on how (none / 0) (#1)
    by pie on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:43:59 PM EST
    easy it is to get a ID.

    A lot of us think it's fairly easy, because of a driver's license.  For those who don't have one, if a photo ID is required to vote, then it should be absolutely freaking free.

    One of the dissents... (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:01:28 PM EST
    made the point that the Supreme Court had struck down the "poll tax" law based on the tax being $1.50.... and that about $10 in today's money, less than the cost of a drivers license in Indiana.

    If I were the Indiana Democratic Party, I'd have poll watchers in every GOP precinct with a cell phone...and one outside.  If someone shows up without their drivers license, not only do they get challenged, but the voter gets told that if they came in a car, they will have to walk back home, or they will be reported to the as driving without their license.


    Currently, with the new terrorism regs, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:59:26 PM EST
    you have to have your birth certificate, social security card and a utility bill or similar to get one through the DMV. Lot of folks probably cannot come up with at least one of those. Even if they can get to an approved location and have the time to sit. So it should be free and there should be lots of locations and less documentation.

    IIRC A Lot Of Elderly Black People Did Not Have (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:48:51 PM EST
    their births recorded properly especially in rural areas. They need to have a way to overcome this. OTOH since these laws are designed to disenfranchise these very people, I doubt they will do anything to fix this.

    No student IDs? (none / 0) (#2)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:54:59 PM EST
    There goes Obama's vote!

    This is quite outrageous.  Maybe everybody in IN has a driver's license (unlike here in NY), but what if you don't have a driver's license or a passport?

    What if you dr's license is from out of state? (none / 0) (#21)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:04:15 PM EST
    But you register in IN to vote because you go to school there? That's possible, right?

    Yup (none / 0) (#48)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:39:56 PM EST
    That's what I'm doing. If Georgia were to pass a law like this I'd be left unable to vote.

    Ain't freedom grand?


    absentee ballot from your home state (none / 0) (#56)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:59:15 AM EST
    there are ways for out of state voters to vote in there home states. My daughter voted absentee in primaries and general elections while she was in school, if you care you do it.

    Wow. When I voted in TN, I walked in, signed my (none / 0) (#4)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 07:58:22 PM EST
    name and tried to show my voter registration card. They waved me on and just asked my name, ticked me off in the computer and sent me on to vote.

    I had a similar experience in NY (none / 0) (#15)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:30:36 PM EST
    on Super Tuesday. They even asked me if I was voting as a Dem or Repub, which is pretty weird since NY is a closed primary.  If I'd been inclined, I guess I could have voted on the Repub ballot.

    It was weird..I could have told them I was (none / 0) (#16)
    by Teresa on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:32:47 PM EST
    anybody and got away with it. We have no party registration here so we do have to sign for Dem or Rep primary ballots.

    You wre asked (none / 0) (#32)
    by themomcat on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:28:01 PM EST
    your party affiliation before you voted because the booths are different on primary day as are the registration rolls. If you are a registered Democrat in NYS you sign the registration log under a previous signature, usually from the last time you voted or your registration card. You can't change your affiliation on primary day. You were asked so the workers knew which book to find your registration.

    Works pretty much the same way in PA (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:38:25 PM EST
    except that you sign next to a digital copy of your signature. I think they used to have the big books, but now they just print off a fresh copy of the voter logs every election.

    It seems to affect the primary. It's free for some (none / 0) (#7)
    by jerry on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:02:55 PM EST
    Indiana Secretary of State :: Todd Rokita

    It was passed in 2006, so it seems as though it will be in effect on the primary.  


    If you do not possess an ID that is acceptable for voting purposes, Public Law 109-2005 requires the BMV to issue an Indiana State ID Card free.

    Exemptions do exist for the indigent, those with a religious objection to being photographed, and those living in state-licensed facilities that serve as their precinct's polling place. If you are wishing to claim an exemption from the photo ID requirement based on indigence or a religious objection, you may do so in one of two ways:

       1. Go the polls on Election Day, and cast a provisional ballot. Within 10 days of the election, visit the county election office and affirm that an exemption applies to you.
       2. Vote absentee-in-person at the county election office before Election Day, and while there, affirm that an exemption applies to you.

    If you are a resident at a state-licensed facility that serves as your polling place, you may claim the exemption at the polls on Election Day.

    If you are unable or unwilling to present photo ID on Election Day, you may cast a provisional ballot. Upon casting a provisional ballot, you have until noon 10 days after the election to follow up with the County Election Board and either provide photo ID or affirm one of the law's exemptions applies to you.

    Also, if you qualify to vote absentee-by-mail or absentee-by-traveling board, and you chose to vote as such, you are not required to present photo ID. Please view the Absentee Voting section of the Voter Information Portal to view the absentee ballot applications and the Absentee Voter's Bill of Rights.

    Horrible decision... (none / 0) (#13)
    by OrangeFur on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:19:39 PM EST
    The law is transparently a voter suppression device masquerading as protection against fraud. There seems to be no evidence at all that voter fraud has any impact at all in our elections. Has there even been a single documented case of it recently? There is no way that this law won't turn away far more valid voters than invalid voters

    The only thing that gives me any comfort at all is that Stevens wrote the majority opinion.

    Ohio: 2004 (none / 0) (#30)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST

    I completely sympathize as how this may seem as a tool to leave out poorer voters.  However, with a law like this in place, it could open up a can of worms for those looking to cheat...again.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#41)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:23:47 PM EST
    but this is a losing issue for Democrats like gun control.

    Most people are going to think this is a reasonable restriction. Hell half the employers workplaces you cant even get into without without a swipe card. You cant travel by air without someone matching up your photo id and your boarding pass, but there is no security around voting?

    The focus ought to be on making sure that the government can issue id cleanly and efficiently. If they are keeping a citizen waiting too long, or only open bankers hours, then thats the issue.


    Democracy: A losing issue (none / 0) (#50)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:49:20 PM EST
    Wow. I never thought I'd see the day when people advise the Democrats to give up on the whole "everyone gets to vote" thing.

    Voting is a fundamental right whether or not you own a car and whether or not people think you should own a car. It's the state's responsibility to verify the integrity of the elections they hold, not the citizen's. If the state wants people to jump through hoops, so be it, but they had better be prepared to foot the bill instead of creating unfunded mandates.


    Montana so far anyway has refused the (none / 0) (#17)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:34:22 PM EST
    national ID law for drivers licenses, so I guess as a resident here I will have trouble getting on an airplane without a passport....:-(

    I show my ID in Florida (none / 0) (#18)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 08:47:56 PM EST
    drivers license and voter registration card.

    Of course Florida being Florida and Republican ruled, they continue to make things up to mess things up.

    Yes.  We have become a Banana Republic.

    remember (none / 0) (#52)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:44:40 AM EST
    Germany and Canada have voter ID rules.

    Erm (none / 0) (#59)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    Which came first, the Voter ID Rule or the national ID?

    I Wish Hillary Had Come Out With A Stronger (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:01:42 PM EST
    statement. Before anyone bashes me, I am a Clinton supporter.

    You poor thing (none / 0) (#24)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:12:18 PM EST
    have you been @ Huff Po or DKos?  Looks like you have some kind of comment fatigue syndromw?

    No bashing allowed @ TL.


    I Avoid DKos And Huff Po Like The Plague (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:42:25 PM EST
    Regular here at TL but this weekend we were invaded big time by some very insulting people (non HRC supporters) and tolerance was strained IMO. Talk about "comment fatigue syndrome." Maybe it is just me, but people seem a little quicker on the draw today as a result. You know what they say. "An ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure."

    I'm a regular here too (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:55:23 PM EST
    I came to TL a lot during Plamegate.  For whatever reason one night, after being SO dispirited about how DK and HuffPo were so in the tank for Barack, I just stopped in to see what was going on here and WOW!  Like an oasis in the desert.

    I had only donated to one blog, Crooks and Liars.  Now I have donated twice to TL.  Although I think that it can be a little too sensitive sometimes, I like the mature dialogue here.  I have taken note of some of the regulars like me.

    And yes I read the comments dogging out HRC. That's okay though. We can intellectually defend ourselves.

    Gotta get back on topic.  I don't want to lose my commenting privledges.

    Sorry JM to be WAY off topic.


    It Is A Poll Tax (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:16:49 PM EST
    And should not be allowed. It is unfair to make people have to pay any money to vote.

    Here's what I would say: (none / 0) (#26)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:17:06 PM EST
    "Voter ID is essential to ensure the One Person ONE vote hallmark of our democracy. That said,  we need to ensure, though, that the ID needed is not something that would financially impede a citizen's right to voice their opinion on election day, such as the disenfranchising poll-tax of the 20th century."

    If I were running for office, that would show respect for the law but not leaving out poorer or socio-economic challenged voting blocs.

    I love this (none / 0) (#28)
    by jarober on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:22:17 PM EST
    I love the way Big Tent calls for closed primaries, completely oblivious to the fact that - without some kind of ID check - such a thing is impossible.

    At the very least, this ruling will make urban Democrats have to spend a little more money to commit the kind of fraud that happens every election cycle.  

    Liar (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:37:09 PM EST
    Closed primary have no more need for photo ID than any other kind of primary. If your name is in the book and listed with the right party, and your signature matches, you can vote.



    Why is that impossible? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:00:08 PM EST
    I don't now where you live, but where I live, my driver's license has no information about my party affiliation, so the fact that I can prove who I am does not mean I can prove what my party is.

    In MD, you approach the check-in table, you give the judge your name.  He or she looks it up in the computerized poll book, and asks you for the month and year of your birth, and, in the primary, your party affiliation.  Give the info that matches the info in the poll book, and you're good to go.  If you wanted to vote as someone else, you'd better know the month and year they were born, and that year of birth better match the age you appear to be.  If your dad died, and you wanted to vote as him, you're going to be asked to show an ID if you don't look like an 80-yr old man.

    You're only going to be given a voter access card for whatever party the poll book shows you registered as - now tell me how showing a driver's license prevents voter fraud in a closed primary.


    Fraud (none / 0) (#37)
    by jarober on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 09:48:08 PM EST
    Yeah, because signature checks by amateurs are so exact, and no one would ever, ever think of gaming the system.

    There are no id checks here in Maryland; there are no signature checks, either.  If I wanted to pay attention to recent deaths in nearby precincts, I could vote 10-20 times on election day, without having to drive more than 20 miles total.  

    That's an obvious invitation to fraud, especially in "machine politics" areas.  Most such machines are Democratic today, but there have been Republican ones in the past that exhibited all the same problems.  

    Um, no you wouldn't. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:03:23 PM EST
    If you aren't in the precint in which you're registerd, the only way you can vote is on a provisional ballot.  Provisional ballots aren't usually even counted unless the election is close, and when 20 provisional ballots show up with the same name, they're not going to count.

    And again, unless you know the month and year of the decedent's birth, and are approximately the same age, and in the right precinct, you are S. O. L.

    Nice try.


    I worked and worked on my mother's signature and (none / 0) (#58)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:24:56 AM EST
    never got it right.

    I don't know many people with the skill to glance at a signature and reproduce it effectively.

    Now, there might be some fantastic forgers out there, but they are few and far between.

    Much easier to hack voting machines and/or reports, if one is trying to steal an election.  Interesting that R's are so concerned about identify fraud in voting, but don't really cotton as to why a paper trail is essential.

    Maybe it's that they have different objectives?

    Some caller on WNYC this morning suggested literacy tests.  That brings up so many good memories for black voters! (Well, non-voters when they were being used....)


    Harlem? (none / 0) (#42)
    by AlSmith on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:30:58 PM EST

    Whatever happened to the Harlem voter fraud? It seemed to be that someones political machine (I dont see this being the candidates) was upto something but I never saw a followup.

    Is this just a NY City hush up, because I dont think we ever saw follow ons from the original story.

    IN's Repubs require no ID for absentee voting (none / 0) (#44)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:41:14 PM EST
    which, at least in some states, has been the major source of fraudulent or identity stolen voting.

    But, nothing...

    I (none / 0) (#49)
    by nell on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:44:24 PM EST
    had to send a photocopy of my drivers license when I requested an absentee ballot for the Dem primary...

    That's it? Do they have signatures on file for (none / 0) (#57)
    by jawbone on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:19:34 AM EST
    comparison? A signature is required on the absentee ballot, right?

    Thanks so much for the info.


    For any TL'ers in Seattle (or environs) (none / 0) (#45)
    by shoephone on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 10:44:46 PM EST
    Coincidentally, the League of Women Voters of Seattle is hosting a free public forum this Thursday evening on voting rights issues. It's co-sponsored by Seattle Works. Ron Sims, among others, will be there to discuss many facets of voting rights -- including immigrant voting, ex-felons voting and all the various types of disenfranchisement. I guarantee you that the Voter I.D. issue will come up in discussion because the League has taken a firm position against those laws, in some cases filing suits against them in different states (Florida, Indiana and -- I believe -- Missouri.)

    If you want more info about the forum, click on the LWVS website

    Poll Tax 2.0 (none / 0) (#46)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 11:35:50 PM EST
    Funny, I thought citizens had a right to vote. Guess I was wrong.

    Well (none / 0) (#53)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:46:29 AM EST
    show where in the constitution where the right to vote is mentioned.

    durr (none / 0) (#60)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    -- Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1870)

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
    -- Nineteenth Amendment (1920)

    The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
    -- Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964)

    The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.
    -- Twenty-sixth Amendment (1971)


    Fraud.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by jarober on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:22:42 AM EST
    "If you aren't in the precint in which you're registered, the only way you can vote is on a provisional ballot.  "

    So let's say I show up in a different precinct, and I claim to be someone who lives there (but who I know, having done some minimal research, won't be at the polls).  They aren't checking IDs.  In Maryland, they don't check signatures.  How exactly are they going to challenge my claimed identity, unless the person working the desk happens to know the guy I'm claiming to be?

    That's your strategy against fraud?  The hope that the volunteer behind the desk knows the face of everyone in the precinct?

    Dems Need to Buck Up and Deal With It. (none / 0) (#55)
    by jsj20002 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 07:20:37 AM EST
    The Indiana voter ID law is OK with six justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  We now need to work in our state legislatures to ensure that persons who lack drivers licenses are able to obtain a state issued photo ID for free and then we need to reach out to those who need help in obtaining them.  The AARP and other groups already help people file their taxes.  We could help them get their voter IDs.  With a little bit of ingenuity, this could be a great party-building opportunity.  If local Democratic activists like me want to do something very useful we can get all the people who need them their voter IDs by next November.  Don't you think they will remember which party helped them when their state voter ID card arrives in the mail?