"Voter ID Case To Be Decided Before Election '08"

Google: Supreme Court to rule on Voter IDs

Source:  National Journal – 9/25/2007

Thoughts: What qualifies as disenfranchisement? Is requiring a valid form of identification an infringement on an individuals access to the ballot? These are some of the questions that will be considered when the Supreme Court hears the latest voter law case this year. In my opinion, I do not believe it is an overwhelming burden to require voters to show a picture ID when they come to the ballot. How can you protect the institution of voting from fraud without some level of control? It is not like they are requiring you to register months in advance before Election Day. Consider it to be similar to buying alcohol. If you cannot verify your age, you cannot make your purchase. Why not the same on Election Day?

I will have a more detailed discussion on this topic in the future with some recommendations to ensure that the only true voter disenfranchisement, that being the devaluation of their valid vote being nullified by fraud from others, is minimized along with clarifying the process for all. But in the end, this is a state issue, and the states have to determine what level of control their want to place on the election process.

Article:  “Voter ID Case To Be Decided Before Election ’08″
By Jane Roh

Among the cases granted cert by the Supreme Court today is a highly anticipated appeal concerning one of the strictest voter ID laws in the land.

(Article continues.)

Petitioners in the consolidated case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, are appealing the decisions of two lower courts to uphold the 2005 law, which requires would-be voters to present government-issued photo identification. The court will be asked to decide, probably in oral arguments early next year, whether the law infringes on Indianans’ right to vote.

This case will settle a patchwork of conflicting laws popping up in the states, a welcome relief as the very act of voting becomes ever more complicated in certain places. But voting rights advocates opposing ID requirements could well find themselves wishing the case hadn’t been brought just yet.

It’s not because their argument isn’t a good one. This case may rely more on evidence than pure constitutional interpretation (to the chagrin of Justice Antonin Scalia, no doubt). In theory, voter ID supporters say, there is nothing wrong with such restrictions if the purpose and intent is to prevent fraudulent voting. In practice, opponents counter, obtaining photo identification presents an unfair hurdle to minorities, rural communities and the poor.

(Read the rest of the article here.)