How could anybody possibly defend the notion of being able to vote without a valid ID?

How pervasive fraud may be isn't the point -- by the way, I guess you don't know anything about Chicago's recent history, Mr Oliphant. The point is that the simple and very reasonable requirement of an ID makes fraud a little more difficult. Not requiring one makes it easier.

And nobody is disenfranchised.

Can't wait for some boob to equate the RIGHT to vote with the PRIVILEDGE to drink alcohol or drive a motor vehicle. Just admit it Repukelics, you wan't people to have to pay and jump thru hoops in order to vote. After all, Indiana could not offer evidence that voter fraud was existed let alone was pervasive.

More garbage "journalism" from Tom Oliphant. The one good thing about the Swamp here is that is shows just how biased and far to the left so many LIBune reporters are, with Oliphant and Frank James perhaps the best examples of the worst the LIBune offers readers.

Anyway, Tim, the Court ruling is a victory for the American people, it is a victory for those who vote legally, who can vote because they registered, and a victory for LEGAL American citizens.

If you can take the time to register, take the time to get your driver's license and take the time to go and vote, the you can take the time to get an ID to vote if driver's license is not sufficient or you can't get one for whatever reason.

And the Left's upsetness with this ruling is just more proof the Left is really upset because this ruling ca n impinge on the Democratic's party continued need for vote fraud in order to win elections.

One small baby step back, toward Jim Crow. (And in the North, yet.)

The Tide is Turning.
The Republicans have done a lot of damage to America. America is waking up to their tyranny, their corruption and their class warfare. It is going to be a long, long time before we forget, again. November is coming fast upon us all ...

The decision was the CORRECT one. We ask people for all kinds of IDs for just about EVERYTHING these days, so why should something as IMPORTANT to our Representative Democracy, like voting, voting be any different?

Look at all the Republicans cheering the return of the poll tax. The poor aren't real americans in their opinion.

I am a liberal -- I will vote Democratic in November, though I have my own preferences. I'm a liberal -- did I mention that?

And I do not get how having to show identification is burdensome. You have to show IDs for all kinds of things -- why shouldn't you have to prove who you are in order to vote? I just think this makes sense. I'm going to try to read more about this -- I can see how requiring a PHOTO id could be over the top, but I frankly thing everyone should have to prove who they are to prevent voter fraud.

I don't see any problem with requiring a photo ID as long as the state is willing to provide free photo IDs and free copies of the documents required to get the IDs.

I would say it is more a victory for common sense. I vote both ways. I have voted for Dems and Republicans. I voted Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I dont see how asking someone to show proof of id is burdensome. It is no secret that here in Chicago voter fraud has been common place.

Liz,
The problem is that State picture IDs are not free. You have to pay a fee in addition to taking time from work and transporting youself to the ID facility. And the lines, my god the lines. This is in effect a poll tax.

I find it rich that Repugnicans are so in favor of this measure yet I remember the stink they created when Motor Voter Registration was first debated. Imagine making the Voter registration process as easy as going to the DMV or the supermarket. Yet Repugnicans thought it was a bad idea. It only proves my theory that Repugnicans will go to ANY. LENGTH. to. make. voting. more. difficult. for. average. people. Catfiche?

So all you people that a screaming Jim Crow, and Poll Tax. You are so wrong. Here is the Indiana Law.

"Public Law 109-2005 requires Indiana residents to present a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot at the polls on Election Day.

Your photo ID must meet 4 criteria to be acceptable for voting purposes. It Must:

1. Display your photo

2. Display your name, and the name must conform to your voter registration record. Conform does not mean identical. Below are examples of names that would conform to "Robert John Crew"

Robert John Crew
Robert J. Crew
Robert Crew
R. John Crew
R. J. Crew
Bob John Crew
Bob J. Crew
Bob Crew
John Crew
J. Crew
3. Display an expiration date and either be current or have expired sometime after the date of the last General Election (November 7, 2006)

Including Military IDs with expiration does of "INDEF"
4. Be issued by the State of Indiana or the U.S. government

In most cases, an Indiana driver license, Indiana photo ID card, Military ID or U.S. Passport is sufficient.

A student ID from an Indiana State school may only be used if it meets all of the 4 criteria specified above. A student ID from a private institution may not be used for voting purposes. For more Information for College Students click here.

If you are unable or unwilling to present ID meeting these requirements, you may cast a provisional ballot. If you cast a provisional ballot, you have until noon 10 days after the election to follow up with the county election board and either provide the necessary documentation or affirm one of the law’s exemptions applies to you."

As for a State ID. Here is that information -

Only original documents or certified copies will be allowed. If your Social Security number is not already on the Bureau of Motor Vehicles' internal register, you will need to provide proof of that, too, from the acceptable documentation list.

All documents must be in English, and in your name. (English translation is also acceptable.) A foreign driver's license is not an approved form of identification.

If you use documents from the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration/Naturalization Service, or Citizenship and Immigration Service, they will need to be approved by the Central Verification Process before a state ID card will be issued.

You may receive a temporary ID document until that verification process has been completed. The fees for this are the same as listed above; if your identification documents are approved, your state ID card will be mailed to you.

If your identification isn't approved, you will receive a letter explaining the steps to appeal that decision; however, you will not be eligible to apply for a refund.

Renewing Your Indiana ID Card
Indiana ID cards are valid for a period of six years, expiring on the card holder's birthday. The renewal fee is $13; for disabled ID or for ID cards holders over the age of 65, the fee is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented."

So please tell me how all this equals either a Jim Crow law or a poll tax. It doesn't!

If you want to get some fur flying on a Texas democrat, just bring up the need for a positive form of voter identification law. That's one new law that they are most admantly opposed to. Now why would that be. dems, rhetorical question. I do know the answer for these sort of things.

The Repubs thought that Diebold would be their ticket for election control, but with electronic voting blown out of the water, they have to look for other means.

I don't have a problem with the voter ID thing, but the implementation and timing are the crucial points. There will have to be a serious effort by the party organizations to be sure everyone knows what's needed to vote and start a big absentee ballot campaign.

Darkwater,

Great post. You probably could have added some "Crewe" inversions to the list as well. Appended "e", un-appended "e" what's the difference.

Gotta give the dems credit though, for that strong "right-brained" characteristic that they tend to maintain. Would have taken me awhile to make the Identification card = Poll Tax equation, which was used by the democrat party for nearly a hundred years to discourage black voters in Tx from voting. It was recognized for what it was and ruled unconstitutional in Tx approximately 40 years ago.

"Liz,
The problem is that State picture IDs are not free. You have to pay a fee in addition to taking time from work and transporting youself to the ID facility. And the lines, my god the lines. This is in effect a poll tax."

Actually, sate ID cards for voting purposes ARE free in Indiana.

http://www.in.gov/bmv/3378.htm#Identification%20Card%20Fees

There is no poll tax involved here, just a way to prevent voter fraud.

And to you Liz, I capitalize the "d" in Democrat for recognizing that it is just the right thing to do. Win or lose, elections need to be decided fairly. Thanks.

*****
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | April 29, 2008 12:50 PM

"Right-brained"? I take offense.

I am left handed, and I am no Democrat. I might also remind you that Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush were also southpaws and, thus, "right-brained."

Calling the requirement of a voter ID card – provided free by the state - a "poll tax" is not "right-brained." It is "lame-brained." I reject your attempt to throw that hog into my puddle.

John W. / John W.,

Let calmness prevail. I WAS a teacher in a previous life. It WAS presented to us as important for us to identify the type of learners / non-learners that we were invariably burdened with. There was NO correlation ever presented with respect to cognitive functions and hand dexterity that I can recall.

Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Paul McCartney, the truly Great Sandy Koufax, all lefties. All great, at what they did and do in the case of P. McCartney, in my most humble opinion. Also with respect to the last two, I do not know, or truly do not even care, what their politics are. Think that there is more than a little confusion here in making the hand / brain cognition kind of connection, which I did not make. Two entirely different things.

Voter ID = Poll Tax is also not a connection that I made. Some other dems are making it, and it is creative. Grade = "A" for creativity. If it is not your puddle, or livestock, then I would not worry about it all that much.

Well, that's just me, just admiring the work of creative people everywhere while I still tend to think that it is not unreasonable for a voter to correctly identify that he / she is who he / she claims to be.

Chris,
So the state is going to pay for my missed work and transportation fees to make this trip to get a Voter ID? Didn't think so. That's money out of my pocket. A poll tax.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | April 29, 2008 3:21 PM

I am calm. In fact, I jest. If only you could have seen my smirk as I typed my objection.

You have correctly identified right brained people as creative. But I still doubt whether it is correct to call it creative for one to equate a free ID card for voting with a poll tax. It takes no creativity to regurgitate hogwash. That is why I serenely demur to your suggestion.

How about the other 17 states that want to require photo ID's to vote. Have each and every one of them made provisions for free ID's?

O.K., John W., I THOUGHT we were pretty much in agreement, here, but surely was not sure.

Things are not so bad for me that my side, my party, HAS to win, no matter what. If an election outcome is fairly decided, I guarantee anyone that I will live with the results and not cry on forever about it. I would just think that everyone would naturally want the same kind of assurance of a fair election, but with democrats, (NOT u Liz), it can get amazingly presumptive to make that assumption.

Here's the sad thing about teaching - When you invariably fail to teach them ALGEBRA or GEOMETRY, u complement them on their CREATIVITY.

Peace.

* * * * *
Posted by: Scott - Houston, Tx | April 29, 2008 4:31 PM

Huh? What's witht the bit about not crying about stuff? I agree with you 99.99% of the time. I just don't think the argument re: poll tax (with which you also disagree) is "creative."

Okay, if you are just fishing for something nice to say, then be my guest and call it creative. I suppose its fine to apply Thumper's rule on the blog.

Indiana could not point to one single indivual who was disenfranchised, not one! Thats why they lost. Don't talk about who could possibly or might be affected, talk about who actually IS affected. The answer is NO ONE. This was a frivolous lawsuit.