Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 8 years ago

If VOTER ID laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, why did the Supreme Court say they are Constitutional?

Good luck trying to get this Supreme Court to overturn their own decision, libs...

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24351798/ns/politics/t...

7 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Uh... that's a 2008 case, not a recent case. Indiana's existing law was constitutional as it provided IDs free of charge to the poor and allowed voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and provide ID within 10 days. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008)

    Some of the more recent voter ID laws are in states with certain restrictions under the Voter Rights Act because of past discrimination (like Alabama), or because they require specific IDs that put an undue burden on the poor. If a birth certificate is required for an ID and there's no provision for a free one, that might be seen as an unconstitutional poll tax. If IDs are only available at DMVs and there are no offices in poor neighborhoods, of if none can be reached by public transit, that might be seen as an Equal Protection problem. It's a state-by-state issue.

  • 3 years ago

    Yea i dont recognize how the Obama administration and Eric Holder are tricky the Texas voter id regulation even as there has already been the ruling you appropriate. yet i'm no longer suprised they attempt it because the courtroom has made some quite questionable rulings presently.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    The Voter ID laws cover more than just IDs. Requiring an ID may be constitutional. But voter ID laws also cover registration limitations and absentee ballot limitations and other issues. So there probably will be suits to strike parts of voter ID laws.

  • 8 years ago

    Does that mean it's also Constitutional to refuse to send ballots to servicemen overseas? http://coloradoindependent.com/101176/pained-ortiz... Does it also mean it's OK to make voter REGISTRATION so hard to do that even the League of Women Voters gives up? http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_politics/201... Does that mean it's Constitutional to try to do away with electoral apportioning of votes in Nebraska and institute it in Pennsylvania? http://news.yahoo.com/pa-neb-republicans-want-elec... Does it prevent voter fraud to do away with early voting days? http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/1...

    Stop trying to pretend that any of these laws are being passed for any other reason than to reduce the number of Democratic voters.

    Then, there's this: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Why not just read Stevens's decision? Surely that will answer your question.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I was going to tell the DMV that I didn't need any proof of who I was if they ruled any other way.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    the whiny liberals talk about disenfranchising voters, the very voters that HAVE to show ID to get their food stamps and welfare

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.