Marathon Pundit: SCOTUS upholds Indiana election photo ID law

Wow, busy news day. Vote fraud will be harder to pursue thanks to a 6-3 US Supreme Court decision upholding an Indiana law requiring photo identification, you know, the type you need to pay for something with a check or enter a large office building, in order to vote in the Hoosier State.

From the Indianapolis Star:

Opponents had argued that the law, considered the toughest voter ID statute in the nation, places substantial practical and financial burdens on voters and is aimed at fixing a type of election fraud that rarely occurs.

The state said the law imposes minimal, if any, interference and increases public confidence in the integrity of the elections.

The court agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority that because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of getting one does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred but for different reasons. Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

About half the states have some voter ID requirement. Seven states, including Indiana, ask for a photo ID although some will accept a signed affidavit instead. Indiana and Georgia both require the ID to be government-issued. Opponents said Indiana's law is tougher because it's harder to get the free ID.

The Star goes on to explain that opponents of the law claim the photo-ID law would prevent a type of vote fraud that is rare in Indiana. However, a former firefighter from Pendleton, Indiana who voted in an election in Anderson (where he didn't live) probably would have been less likely to attempt breaking the law had the picture identification stipulation been in effect a few years ago. A prosecutor said of the man, "As a good Democrat, he felt the need to vote in the city election." He also stated that practice had been going on for too long in his county.

There are plenty of other instances of vote fraud in Indiana, of special note is the rampantly fraudulent 2003 Democratic mayoral primary in East Chicago. A court ordered a re-vote a year later.

I'ts hard to envision that the new photo-ID law not helping the cause of free and fair elections in the Hoosier State.

Look for the Democrats to complain about today's Supreme Court decision, particularly Barack Obama, who likes to brag the he worked for voters' rights in the 1990s while working as a civil rights attorney.

But he's been silent about the massively fraudulent 2004 vote-buying scandal in East St. Louis--Obama was on the ballot for that contest. Illinois does not have a photo-ID requirement to vote--it should--but in that particular incident, flashing an identification card at the polling place would not have made a difference. Five East St. Louis Democrats were convicted for their role in the vote buying scheme.

Related posts:

Vote fraud news: Obama, ACORN, and East St. Louis

Hypocrite Obama won't tolerate election theft

Obama and the Laborers' Union Ed Smith

Technorati tags: