Supreme Court Legalizes Voter Suppression

by: project vote

Mon Apr 28, 2008 at 20:28


(So I don't have write it myself.  This is EVIL, pure and simple. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

Project Vote Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board

On Monday, April 28, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana's law (Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board) requiring voters to show a government-issued photo identification before they may cast a ballot. Crawford plaintiffs argued that Indiana's strict photo ID requirements disproportionately disenfranchise minority voters. Donna Massey, Project Vote Board Member and a supporter of voting rights, issued this statement:

    "The Supreme Court ruling is disappointing for Americans who want the next president to be chosen in a free and fair election in which all eligible voters have an equal opportunity to participate. The voters most harmed by the ruling are first-time voters who are registering this year in record numbers. If legislators in the 24 states where strict photo voter ID rules have been introduced take the Court's decision as a green light, voters across the country will find it more difficult to cast their ballots this Election Day. Our democracy works best when every American participates.

    The real purpose of strict photo voter ID rules is to make it more difficult for some Americans to vote. It's the voters who are less likely to vote who are also less likely to have government issued ID, such as young people, the poor, elderly, and Americans of color. A University of Washington study, for example, found that in Indiana 22 percent of African-American voters lack proper identification compared to 16 percent of white voters. Twenty-one percent of voters earning less than $40,000 a year lack the necessary ID compared to just 13 percent of those earning more than $40,000. All Americans have a right to vote, even if they don't have a photo ID.
project vote :: Supreme Court Legalizes Voter Suppression
    The only reason politicians support these laws is to give their party an advantage over the other. The Supreme Court took note of the partisan nature of the photo ID rules. The Court's opinion in the case said it was "fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role" in enacting the photo ID law.  This ruling sends an unfortunate green light to legislators in the 24 states that are still considering strict photo voter ID laws.

    The right to vote has been under assault for the past eight years by partisans who put winning elections above the right to vote. Requiring voters to show photo ID is just one of many hurdles partisans put in front of voters on their way to the ballot box. Too many Americans of color are met at their polling places with long lines, partisan challengers, faulty equipment and needlessly strict photo ID requirements.

    Strict photo voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. There is no evidence of widespread fraudulent voting in this country. Indiana even acknowledged that there hasn't been a single case of voter impersonation in the state's history. Americans take voting seriously and do not misrepresent themselves at the polls, so politicians shouldn't misrepresent the facts to justify unnecessarily strict photo ID laws.

    As the country's premiere nonpartisan voter registration organization, Project Vote wants to make sure that the Americans we help register to vote can vote and have their votes counted on Election Day. Nothing should come between Americans and their right to vote."

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And this is what should unite Democrats (4.00 / 2)
Anytime, a so-called loyal Democrat talks about abandoning the party - or even not voting - because their favorite candidate did not become the nominee, I always think of the Supreme Court.

I understand why someone might resent Obama or Clinton, after this bruising campaign.  But no one should ever forget how important it is to have ANY Democrat in the White House in order to, if nothing else, maintain some modicum of control over the future of the Supreme Court.


It is the rationale to press on (4.00 / 1)
Anyone who considers themselves a Dem but threatens to cross the aisle just because their candidate did not get selected should be reminded about headlines like this:

Supreme Court's newcomers lead push to the right

About travesties such as ths:

the court also limited the reach of a 1968 ruling that allowed taxpayers to sue the government over potential violations of the separation of church and state.

and this:

In the decision limiting students' speech rights, the court ruled against a former high school student in Alaska who said his rights were violated when a principal tore down a banner the student had held up in 2002, as the Winter Olympics torch relay passed by the school. The banner read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," which officials saw as a violation of their anti-drug policies.

Making an exception to a 1969 ruling that protected non-disruptive students' speech rights on campus without reversing the previous decision, the court ruled that schools could ban signs, buttons and T-shirts that conflict with their anti-drug policies.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w...

It is important to elect good democrats that stand for sound Progressive and Liberal principles but it is also important to block conservatives who will continue to push the court to the right.


[ Parent ]
this decision is horrible (0.00 / 1)
but it would have been made under Obama and Clinton too since they won't get rid of the existing justices.  The court may be gone.

What's your next argument for why I shouldn't vote my conscience in a strategic way (that may involve a democrat losing)?  I'm tired of being threatened and being made to feel afraid of things constantly getting worse and would like a coherent argument as to why a Democrat in the White House matters now (as opposed to 8 years ago).


[ Parent ]
Because with a Dem President (0.00 / 0)
the Congress can use the powers granted to it under the 14th and 24th Amendments to pass federal legislation to prevent Indiana and other states from enforcing such a grossly unconstitutional law -- and with a Dem President it can be signed into law.

Just as with the terrible Ledbetter decision, the Congress can undo this. But that won't ever happen without either 2/3 support in both houses of Congress (almost impossible) or majority support in both houses and the signature of the President.


[ Parent ]
thanks (0.00 / 0)
this is actually really helpful.

[ Parent ]
The Congress is capable of (0.00 / 0)
passing unconstitutional legislation and despite its powers such legislation (that gets signed into law) can be challenged.  Just as Congress can create laws the Supreme Court can rule them unconstitutional, rendering them null and void.

As to dr anonymous's real question--about voting his/her conscience, I do not believe that a person is required to vote along party lines.  In fact, to do so is to abdicate one's own personal and civic responsibility as a citizen.  In short, my party does not vote for me.  I am a life-long democrat, and proud of it, but for me to continue to take pride in my party affiliation it is absolutely necessary for me to vote my conscience.


[ Parent ]
When Souter dies and gets replaced by Scalia III (0.00 / 0)
will you still be talking like this?

[ Parent ]
yes (4.00 / 1)
because i think that the court can't be viewed in isolation from all the other things that matter.  While I'm all for playing defense, I want to be convinced of when and where and how it should be done, and balanced with a lot of other things rather than a kneejerk partisanship that's based in fear and results in acquiescing to people who play power games.

I think Obama's original incarnation would have moved us forward in actually building something in the long run that can eventually capture the state the same way that the Christian fundamentalists / pro-business elite did.  And maybe a lot of that still remains in him despite the course the campaign's taken (and thereby his candidacy).  I think Hillary Clinton less so, though I still hold out hope she might do some good on this front too--I hope I'm not mistaken, but I think I might be.

In any case, given the way the election's structured, there's also a lot more room for creativity than a simple choice between a Democrat and a Republican for everyone in the country. My vote is not going to matter in the general election because I'm registered in New York; so I consider how to use it.  Given the state of the Democratic Party and that most people are not adopting this line of thinking about voting, why would I not vote for someone who I come closer to actually agreeing with about a lot of things?


[ Parent ]
Perverse Logic (4.00 / 2)
I will say one thing.  There really is a sort of perverse logic to this.  Since Repubicans can't solve real problems, it makes sense to go after imaginary ones--such as cracking down on crimes that have never been prosecuted:

Indiana even acknowledged that there hasn't been a single case of voter impersonation in the state's history.

Perhaps the best way to fight absurdity is with absurdity.  Why don't we start a movement to make voter impersonation a capital offense?  Then we can attack the GOP as being "soft" on voter impersonation!

We can go even further, and demand a full review of all the laws in Indiana that have never been prosecuted, and then we can demand that all of them be made into capital crimes as well!

When reason fails, ridicule is all we have left.  We just have to figure out the proper delivery system.  These are my suggestions.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


solutions in search of problems (0.00 / 0)
Moreover, there are ways to solve such notional voter fraud that don't involve disenfranchising (as many) voters.  Auditing of voter rolls after elections, contact voters after the fact to confirm they voted, the state could register some fake voters to see if anyone tries to vote under their names and so forth.

If this problem exists, there are better ways to check for it and discourage it.


[ Parent ]
Many ways to solve national voter fraud (0.00 / 0)
my suggestion: abolish the electoral college.  Coming up with the 100,000 votes needed to win a nailbiter nationally is a lot harder than coming up with a few thousand to win the closest swing state.

[ Parent ]
There aren't just presidential elections, though (0.00 / 0)
And a friend did pose an interesting question:  start from the premise that voting is a right for which you do have to identify yourself somehow -- proving you are legally eligible to vote and registered as such.  (18 years old, citizen, etc.)  What is the least intrusive means by which your identity can be credibly verified?

[ Parent ]
this is a good reason why liberals/progressives should stand up for immigrants rights (0.00 / 0)
undocumented people voting without the right to is an argument that's frequently trotted out in defense of these kinds of measures.  It's also absurd and ties into a number of initiatives requiring photos on drivers licenses, biometrics, and other tools that allow the government to make society more "legible" and in the process deny people a whole bunch of different rights and means of securing their welfare.

for more on the opinion itself (4.00 / 2)
Diaried it here.  Indiana didn't present any sort of problem that could justify this burden.

Hmmnnn (4.00 / 1)
"A University of Washington study, for example, found that in Indiana 22 percent of African-American voters lack proper identification compared to 16 percent of white voters. Twenty-one percent of voters earning less than $40,000 a year lack the necessary ID compared to just 13 percent of those earning more than $40,000. All Americans have a right to vote, even if they don't have a photo ID."

I simply don't believe that.  And neither did the District Court rendering the original opinion, which estimated that only 43,000 people lacked ID, about 1% of the population.  Big difference.

Now I don't know which statistics are correct.  But I do know that it makes a big difference and that nobody should be getting up in arms about this issue without first figuring out the reality of the situation.  Facts first, denunciations later.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."


The obvious (4.00 / 3)
I want to applaud Project Vote and other advocacy groups who get it, but there are many on the left who still don't and there are many reasons that  still don't recognize the severity of the attack on democracy from the right. But let me first restate the obvious:

From the closing of the courts through so called tort reform to the destruction of regulatory authority at all levels of government to the attacks on the legislative branch with signing statements etc. to the overt attacks on voting rights, the right is much closer to its democracy-destroying goal than many want to believe.

This is not fiction and it's not exaggeration. It is real.

I'm afraid many, even many experienced advocates on the left should see it but don't see it, because:

1) As Mark Crispin Miller says in his new book, Loser Take All, the "sheer enormity" of the attacks are paralyzing. We don't want to believe it's true;

2) Democratic officeholders assume that because they got elected, the process must still be working, a fantasy born of self-absorption;

3) Despite all we know as adults, we still believe the propaganda we were taught about how all Americans love democracy. No, many rightist Americans  don't believe in it and have worked against it for all our 200-plus years;

4) So many of our otherwise savvy and sophisticated friends don't want to believe it, and even the most iconoclastic of us don't really want to be too out of step;

5) And, too often, it's the unhibited "tin foil hats" who speak out because they don't care what their friends think, and we don't want to be allied with tin hats.


It's Quite True (4.00 / 1)
This was what was so incredibly agonizing about the Florida recount.  It was like living through a car wreck in slow motion.

Every day, another Kafkaesque scene played out, and every day, 75% or more of the Democrats reacted like it was Father Knows Best, instead.

But even worse is what's happened since then.  It's as if Florida 2000 were an earthquake, and the response has been to build an earthquake machine.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
"All Americans have a right to vote..." (4.00 / 1)
If only wishing it made it so. Says the Majority:
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.

What can you say? We've got an awful lot of work to do.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


Just for clarity (4.00 / 1)
That was in the majority's decision in Bush v. Gore, not this ruling.

...

Scalia says (even in his dissents!) that he thinks the Roe decision will eventually come to have the same reputation as Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson.

But I think he knows the "principled" ruling in Bush v. Gore is on the fast track for the worst reputation of any case in modern history.

That's why he told 60 minutes everyone should just "get over it." Cases are supposed to provide precedent and guidance for the future, we never get over them.

I hope that abomination is all people remember him for.


I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
That's Just It (4.00 / 1)
He wants us to get over questioning it.

But history won't forget.  It will be seen as the most immoral Superme Court decision of all time.

It was not simply the expression of an abominable, but widely-held ideology, like Dred Scott or Plessy.  It was a lawless act of pure political corruption and coercive power by a small cabal.  As such, it quite literally has no precedent in our law.  There have been other corrupt decisions--plenty of them.  Happens every day.  But none of such stature and scope, so void of any shred of plausible cover.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
What puzzles legal scholars about the vote... (0.00 / 0)
is that each Justice seemingly voted the opposite way one would have expected them to.

Many scholars already consider it the worst SCOTUS decision of all time.

If you saw Scalia on the 60 Minutes interview the above poster was talking about he almost said something even crazier than "get over it." He gave us a little insight to his reasoning for thinking torture was Constitutional, and his logic was flabergasting.

He said that, technically, torture is not "cruel and unusual punishment," because you see, its not really punishment. The person being tortured didn't do anything to deserver it, and the purpose of the torture is to get information, not to punish. My jaw almost dropped to the floor.

I really wanted to ask him how he thought torture would relate to the 5th amendment then, because I cannot possibly imagine him giving justification for using a coerced confession against someone in court.

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.


[ Parent ]
Strict Construction At It's Finest! (0.00 / 0)
Just in case there were any remaining doubts about that particular judicial philosophy.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
OH (0.00 / 1)
Then it doesn't matter that a Clinton supporting group is trying to suppress the votes of African-Americans! That's acceptable in the US of A! Thanks Supreme Court! You're great!

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search