I laughed when the AP described the 6-3 as a 'splintered' SCOTUS. They rarely describe any decision that favors liberals as a 'splintered' SCOTUS.

What shocked me was that Stevens of all people, agreed with the majority.

Can't wait to see how our 'trusted' media ties this in with anyone NOT voting for Osama in the Heartland.

One 'must' be racist to not vote for that empty suit, just like one 'must' be racist for insisting that you prove your identity and residency beforecasting a ballot.

Those ebil Justices are disenfranchising thousands of dead Democrats!

What is odd about all this is that Connecticut has had voter ID laws since forever and we are one of the most Democratic states in the Union.

As Obama would say, "Typical white people." I am so glad this is finally approved legally. I never understood the argument against. ww

We have a voter ID law here in Tulsa OK, announced with some ballyhoo for days over the radio. "Must show ID"

So I slapped my DL on the table at the polling station. The polling worker nearly got whiplash refusing to look at it.

"Over the long haul that inevitably will result in fewer Democrats holding public offices around the country."- jj

That's not necessarily true if the GDP keeps tumbling. Instead, a social democracy impulse will emerge which is objectively left of center. That's how history runs in a democratic milieu absent residual monarchical or military designs. It becomes about money-in.
I see the Democratic Party swallowing the big government Republican talent pool over time. Neocons will return to their neo-liberal roots.

The libertarian/constitutionalist impulse will absorb the more principled, small government Republicans, or vice versa. It will be the smaller but more dynamic party. Or a coalition.

Bush will be seen as the father of a new European-style welfare state, as Nero was the father of the New Rome after the conflagration. I.e. in fact, never mind intentions.

Did someone just say something socialist?

How else are illegal immigrants, dead-people, and ineligible felons supposed to vote for their favorite Democrat?

Rob,

The left never has listened very well, maybe they think the saying is '1 hand, 1 vote'.

This is hilarious:

That's not necessarily true if the GDP keeps tumbling.

Where would anyone get the idea that GDP is dropping? Someone with no idea of the actual current and forecast economic performance. Ie., a Democrat.

Where would anyone get the idea that GDP is dropping?

GDP growth has been dropping (third quarter '07: 4.6% growth, 4th quarter '07: 0.6% growth), and it's possible (but unlikely, considering preliminary estimates of around 0.3% growth), that the GDP is negative for 1st quarter '08.

So if bryanD meant by "tumbling" that growth is falling, he's right. If he meant negative growth, he's wrong. For now.

Digby has a great summary of this, from a sane point of view:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/about-that-voter-registration-drive-by.html

She quotes:

"Voter ID laws, however, affect more than an "infinitesimal" number of Americans and are more than a "minor inconvenience." According to the federal government, there are as many as 21 million voting-age Americans without driver's licenses. In Indiana, 13 percent of registered voters lack the documents needed to obtain a license, and therefore, cast a ballot. These restrictions disproportionately hit low-income, minority, handicapped, and elderly voters the hardest, leading to lower levels of voter participation."

Congrats! Anything to drive turnout down.

BTW - any evidence, at all, to believe that there was so much voter fraud to warrant a supreme court case?

So JP, How do those 13% in Indiana get their Social Security cards, food stamps, or *cough* a job without a birth cert?

"Statistics are for losers" - Vince Lombardi

They're squashin' the voting rights of illegals, dammit!

My dead in-laws from Broward county in Florida are going to be really sorry when they hear about this. They were registered Democrats and the family has been certain that they've been voting in every election since their deaths about 5 or 6 years ago.

Again, any evidence that's worth a supreme court case.

Or is it just a Republican campaign to drive down turnout? (that's rhetorical)

BTW - any evidence, at all, to believe that there was so much voter fraud to warrant a supreme court case?
I'll guess it warranted one because SCOTUS granted cert and ruled 6-3 that it is ok? I mean they seemed to think it important enough.

Besides doesn't it see a bit odd that one needs a picture ID to by cigarettes, beer and to drive, but not to prove that one is eligible to help choose our political leadership?

JP,
If you note is was Democrats that brought the suit, hence the case, so I guess it is a Democrat "campaign"...

I'm guessing there's going to be a lot more bitter Democracts clinging to their guns and religion...

Dawnsblood,

It only seems odd to people like jp2.

jp2, three words:

State Identification Card.

I know a lot of people who don't have driver licenses. But they DO have ID.

The cost of an ID is small. Even in California where the cost is higher ($23) people aged 62 or older can get them free and low income people can get them for as little as $7. Some states charge even less to anyone applying.

I agree photo IDs to vote it only makes sense. By the way thanks for these articles they make great discussion points for my government class.

Oh no! thats going to cost the Dems at least a million votes Nationwide.

Again, evidence of voter fraud warranting a supreme court case. Pony up!

Are you really that dense, jp2? The Supreme court case is not about a specific case of voter fraud, it is a dispute on the constitutionality of a state's election laws.

JP2 on evidence:

Actually, the most beautiful part of this case from my perspective is one of the person's held up as being damaged by the law was registered to vote in Indiana and Florida.

Her damage was that she produced a FL license to vote in IN and was only given a provisional. During the discovery portion, her dual registration came to light.

She had moved her license to FL to claim a homestead exemption, voted there when there and voted in IN when there. So the DL requirement led to her getting nailed for voter fraud and tax fraud.

Jp2
Cook County 1960,
3 people went to jail and 677 indicted,
It was good election where every grave counted.

Crap. There goes the Democrat voter rally cry - "Bring out your dead."

To provide a little less, ummm, reactionary response from the left, I agree with this decision. My only opposition to voter ID laws is when they constitute a poll tax (14th, 24th amendments). Since Indiana provides free IDs to those without driver's licenses, and voters without ID can vote provisionally and prove their identity within 10 days, this law does not.

Nothing wrong with preventing voter fraud, as long as you do it right.

But, if all states enact this law, what will dems do with one of their top 5 slogans, "Vote early, and often".

It is generally incumbent upon the plaintiffs in a civil case to prove their claim. Here the plaintiffs were claiming the requirement for photo ID to vote had the effect of disenfranchising certain groups of voters, which they apparently could not prove.

The sad part is we are far too lenient in granting the franchise in this country. We presume every person of legal age has the "right" to vote, even as majorities of our graduating public high school seniors cannot locate Washington, DC on a map of North America, name the three branches of the federal government or as many as five of the first ten Amendments (although I saw one clever fellow had answered, "The First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Third Amendment . . ."), or name their own Representative and Senators.

Huge segments of our electorate never follow the news, know little or nothing about our system of government or economics, and only can be bothered to exercise their franchise if we make it oh-so-convenient for them to do it. Yet, at every election, their favorite television shows are flooded with "public service" messages urging these ignorant people to "get out and vote."

Now, is that any way to run a country? To SEEK OUT the ignorant and uninformed, the apathetic and lazy, and prod and cajole them to cast votes on candidates and issues they have absolutely no knowledge of or interest in?

Jim,

That is what makes them oh so malleable by the Dems and the MSM. That also explains much of their policy decisions for the last 60 years.

It wasn't so much to "SEEK OUT" as it was to create it in the first place.

I read of the comments of the speaker of the house and the Senate Majority Leader (2 dems)
be-moaning this ruling...

This was a ruling by the SUPREME COURT.

JUSTICE was the verdict. STATE 'rights' to require photo id's of voters. And yet, these 2 federal persons cry FOUL. 'state rights' are PEOPLE rights...yet this party who yells rights rights rights ...are trying to say 'this state' can't require photo id's?
Why? WHAT are they afraid of?

I am a REPUBLICAN and proud of it.

Like the very first comment of this article, I too laughed when the MSM called the decision a 'splintered decision.' Since when is 6-3 'splintered?'

In my mathematical computation, that's 2/3 of the court saying ruling YES to this state.
a mere 1/3 (and the most LIBERAL) voted no.

When will democrats get it? THEY can't have it THEIR WAY ALWAYS...(the only persons I know who cry 'no fair no fair no fair' I wanna I wanna I wanna...you can't cause I wanna do it like this'...the only persons I know who talk as such...are 'wittle children.'