It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court's 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved.
Indiana provides IDs free of charge to people without driver's licenses. It also allows voters who lack photo ID's to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.
Originally posted by FredT
Why no concern about fraud? I have no problems with this what so ever.
Are you simply willing to assume that everybody showing up at the polls is who they say they are?
And the traditional cries of disenfranchised voters that the Democrats make all the time rings hollow since they themselves did the same thing to Florida and Michigan
Originally posted by citizen truth
Why is it a problem to show picture ID?The ID shows a face,name and address to confirm you are who you say you are.
I've been asked to show picture ID for using a credit card, let alone voting.
If people are too poor to afford a driver's license,isn't there another form of ID that can be purchased for a low fee,or perhaps subsidized/free?
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome Monday, but wrote separately in favor of a broader defense of voter ID laws.
"The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting,'" Scalia said.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens," Souter said.
The targets of the law, he said, are "voters who are poor and old."
How do these so-called disenfranchised folks manage to register to vote, draw any type of government benefits, or drive without having some form of identification?
The only disenfranchised populations I can see this effecting are illegal immigrants, felons who are not allowed to vote, and fugitives that are living under assumed names.
These individuals have no legal right to vote in the first place, so who cares?
Originally posted by _Del_
If you have to show ID at Blockbuster, I don't know why you wouldn't/shouldn't have to at the polls. How is this shocking?
I guess we like voter fraud?
Originally posted by C0le
If these ID's are going to be required to be used for voting purposes then they must be FREE, Or else the State is forcing its populace to to pay a TAX to vote.
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.
The voter fraud excuse is much like terrorism and every other scapegoat, They trigger an emotional reaction, with little or no real critical thought as to the potential consequences of the law being passed.