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.
Originally posted by FredT
You have to show ID to purchase tobacco and alcohol, etc etc etc.
With all the concern over the reliability of voting machines, why NOT the concern over those actually casting the votes
Lets face it its not that big of a deal to get an ID and this is legislation that should be passed in EVERY state.
Originally posted by Harry55
How in the world could you disagree? "Come-on" this is only fair to all. If you cannot afford to get photo I.D. You need to get a job.
"It's especially worrisome that the court has sent a signal making it easier to put up barriers to people voting," said Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's law school. "There's a real risk that people will see this as a green light to pass restrictive voter ID laws in other states."
Congressional Democrats and minority groups assailed Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo-ID law as an affront to voting rights, but political realities in the states suggest that the ruling could have relatively limited impact nationwide.
Only three states — Indiana, Florida and Georgia — currently require voters to show government-issued photo IDs before stepping into the voting booth. Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas are considering similar requirements, but it’s not clear whether they can adopt them before the November elections.
Democratic insiders fear that a number of states, particularly in the Midwest and South, will copy the Indiana law now that the Supreme Court has upheld it. “There’s the concern for our side that it can spread, other states can do what Indiana did,” said a Democratic strategist. “You may see a lot more of this now.”
Originally posted by biggie smalls
Indiana does in fact offer free IDs:
Is it free elsewhere? Definitely not.
Because Indiana’s cards are free, 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. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate— is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office.
Originally posted by _Del_
They didn't rule every state could do it without making those ID's free.
I don't see it as a burden on the voter to provide ID. Neither did the court apparently. If you had bothered to read the judgement you are so upset about, you might actually know that the free id was one reason why the rule was upheld. Further you can submit a provisional ballot without ID.
Originally posted by biggie smalls
If you had read the article, you'd understand this ruling allows other states to require photo IDs without administering free identification cards.
People are going to have to pay to vote. Sounds like democracy to me.
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.