The US Supreme Court has ruled in the State of Indiana, that it is legal for state governments to demand a valid photo I.D. before being allowed to vote. A great majority of recently registered Obama supporters are young and/or have never voted in their lives.How many of these people can get a "Valid picture" I.D. before next weeks Indiana Democratic Primary? In the 1950's and 1960's the Supreme Court was a friend to those who were refused the right to vote or discouraged with fake "intelligence test" to qualify to vote. Now the Supreme Court is part of the problem and...
has learned nothing of their passed mistakes? Unless... their tampering and becoming the decision maker in the 2000 Presidential election was not a mistake. Has this "right' leaning court decided to make it it's purpose to dictate and greatly influence all future presidential elections.This rule was backed by Republicans and assailed by Democrats.
There were two opinions in the six-three majority, each signed by three justices, and the "lead opinion" written by John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the state presented "no evidence" that some Indianans were voting under others' names, but that neither was there "any concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification," as the New York Times reports.
The Stevens opinion also said that while "all of the state's Republican legislators, and none of the Democrats, voted for the law in 2005," such "partisan motivation doesn't invalidate a law," Legal Times adds, especially when it has a valid goal like the reduction of voter fraud. The second majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, supported the Indiana law more emphatically, saying it was justified as "a generally applicable, nondiscriminatory voting regulation." A
nd the third, dissenting opinion, written by Justice David Souter, criticized the law for placing what he called a "serious" and "deterring" burden on poorer or older voters who might be less likely to have the required ID.
Since Indiana's is one of the U.S.'s strictest voter-ID laws, the decision "is likely to end pending challenges to similar laws elsewhere, including Ohio and other states up for grabs in this year's general elections" and "could encourage other states to enact similar rules," The Wall Street Journal notes.
But the most immediate consequences will likely come a week from today, when Indiana holds a primary vote that, according to the Indianapolis Star, is "expected to set a record for turnout fueled by the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama." And it could pose problems for Mr. Obama, The Hill says, since the law's Democratic and civil rights-advocating critics have argued it will disproportionately affect the black and young first-time voters who have thus far made up two of his most important constituencies.
Thanks JOSEPH SCHUMAN for updating us on this story