(Now, who do I give this H/T to; I could go with Brian Fraley or Matt Lewis, but Katie Favazza and Sister Toldjah have them easily beat in the looks department, I haven’t linked to them in a while, and ST has the link to the decision from SCOTUSblog)
The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter-ID requirement 6-3. In a bit of an oddity, Mark Sherman, the AP reporter who wrote that piece, pointedly noted that the author of the opinion of the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens, was a dissenter in Bush v Gore in 2000.
A quick, non-lawyer review of Justice Stevens’ opinion of the court and Justice Scalia’s concurrence reveals the idiocy of opposing photo ID from both the liberal and conservative perspective. While I prefer Scalia’s reasoning, Stevens’ broad repudiation of the arguments against a photo ID requirement, specifically including the “partisan”, “undue burden” on the poor, and “undue burden” on the elderly arguments, ought to have Wisconsin’s Democratic Party reconsidering their staunch opposition to a voter ID requirement. Then again, I’m not hopeful that the ‘Rats will give up their permanent advantage of vote fraud made easier by the lack of a voter ID requirement.
Revisions/extensions (11:38 am 4/29/2008) – I would be remiss if I didn’t point you in the direction of a lawyer’s take, specifically Rick Esenberg’s take. He notes that, because it is Justice Stevens’ opinion that is the controlling one instead of Justice Scalia’s, the door is open ever-so-slightly for future challenges to voter ID requirements.
Loading ...
Vote fraud? I’m sure you meant to say “voter enlistment!”
Big Decision By Supreme Court…
The Supreme Court yesterday ruled that states can indeed require photo identification from voters…
Popularity: unranked [?]……