Does requiring a photo ID to vote reduce voter fraud or give legal protection to an institutional poll tax? Compelling arguments can, and were made, on both sides of this constitutional question, but in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that Indiana's ID law requiring prospective voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot does not disenfranchise.
This case is a good example of how Supreme Court decisions often are political. It also give us working definitions of voter fraud, election fraud and as disenting justice Stephen Breyer said a new use of the previously overturned poll taxes.
Many of you worked at the polls this spring. Should Illinois have an ID requirement to vote?
Read the attatched article and listen to the audio. Also think about linkage organizations the the two political parties and their uses different means to get there special interest accomplished. In this lawsuit, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) used litagation to challenge the Indiana law, and though it was granted a writ of certiori (and was asmong the 1% of cases the high court hears) it lost out. Now using democratic interest groups and the media they are trying to make the case to the public the poor and elderly are being denied the right to vote in Indiana.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0429/p03s09-usju.html
1 comment:
The photo ID requirment is perfectly fine by me. This is not the same situation as poll taxes and literacy tests, which were meant to block the black vote. This is a way to prevent voter fraud. Most people posess the photo ID necessary to vote under such a law. Pretty much everyone has a birth certificate and a social security card, so that's two documents right there, and a work or school photo ID should suffice for the third. Indiana and other states may want to add a provision saying a work or school ID is acceptable if the person does not have a driver's license. If voter fraud is seen as virtually impossible, the ID law may actually increase voter turnout.
Post a Comment