Voter IDs as a New Kind of Poll Tax
Did the Supreme Court Just Elect John McCain?

By BOB FITRAKIS
and HARVEY WASSERMAN

The US Supreme Court has just dealt a serious blow to voters' rights that could help put John McCain in the White House by eliminating tens of thousands of voters who generally vote Democratic.

By 6-3 the Court has upheld an Indiana law that requires citizens to present a photo identification card in order to vote. Florida, Michigan, Louisiana, Georgia, Hawaii and South Dakota have similar laws. Though it's unlikely, as many as two dozen other states could add them by election day. Other states, like Ohio, have less stringent ID requirements than Indiana's, but still have certain restrictions that are strongly opposed by voter rights advocates.

The decision turns back two centuries of jurisprudence that has accepted a registered voter's signature as sufficient identification for casting a ballot. By matching that signature against one given at registration, and with harsh penalties for ballot stuffing, the Justices confirmed in their lead opinion that there is "no evidence" for the kind of widespread voter fraud Republican partisans have used to justify the demand for photo ID.

Voting rights activists have long argued that since photo ID can cost money, or may demand expensive trips to government agencies, the requirement constitutes a "poll tax." Taxes on the right to vote were used for a century to prevent blacks and others from voting in the south and elsewhere. They were specifically banned by the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1964.

But the Court's lead opinion, written by Justice Stevens, normally a liberal, said that though rare, the "risk of voter fraud" was nonetheless "real" and that there was "no question about the legitimacy or importance of the state's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters." The burden of obtaining a voter ID, said the court, was not so difficult as to be deemed unconstitutional. Ohio election protection attorney Cliff Arnebeck believes Stevens joined the decision to divide the Court's conservative majority, and to leave the door open for further litigation.

But there is no indication the corporate media or Democratic Party will be pursuing significant action on this issue any time soon. Though the Kerry Campaign solicited millions of dollars to "protect the vote" in 2004, it has not supported independent research into that election's irregularities. In the King-Lincoln Civil Rights lawsuit, in which we are attorney and plaintiff, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties destroyed ballot materials, in direct violation of federal law. There has been no official legal follow-up on this case, no major media investigation, and no support from the Democratic Party either to investigate what happened in Ohio 2004, or to make sure it doesn't happen again in 2008. The issue has yet to be seriously raised by the major Democratic candidates despite the fact that it could render their campaigns moot.

Much more at..................

http://www.counterpunch.org/wasserman04302008.html

finally!!!

You don't want election fraud do you?

I don't see the great burden in presenting an ID card, and for something as important and easily manipulated as voting, I think identification is essential.

a facility to GET an ID, why can we Dems launch a program of volunteers to take them there?

As for the cost...I know Ga. has FREE ID cards for those who can't afford to pay for them.

This has now been ruled on by the SCOTUS, so we need to stop b'tching about it and figure out a way to make it work for us.

I'm going to a Register to Vote Rally - work session today.

I'll see what they have in place.

The poor blacks for the most part do not have drivers licenses. Many do not even have birth certificates. They were born at home. Utility bills are out of the question if they are in someone else's name. This really is another ploy to disenfranchise democratic voting poor and blacks. It is not the requirement for a "Government" issued photo ID, it is the documentation needed for that ID which is the problem. Throwing money at it is not going to help much.

The real problem is:

"ELECTION FRAUD"

Remember that, Election Fraud, not Voter Fraud. Let's not confuse the two.
The poor are being screwed again without the KY jelly.

VERY OLD people? I honestly don't know how it works when a baby is born at home, but I have to believe there's a way to get a BC.

It's not only a DL that you need a BC for either. I needed mine way back when I applied for my SS #. I find it hard to believe that there is anyone under the age of 80 who doesn't have and never had a BC.

a) it's blatently partisan,

b) measures to prevent fraud are already in place and

c)it's not addressing the real issue of voter fraud, those damned machines.

I agree that we need to make sure the voters are who they say they are. But are we really having a lot of trouble with this to begin with? Or is this a straw-man so that Repubs can say they addressed the issue already?

I was quite surprised when I moved to Ga. and found out that for proof of ID, all you needed was a utility bill. I was so used to haveing to produce a pic ID everywhere else I lived, this seemed absured to me. Think about it. What would prevent John Doe from taking Jack Smith's utility bill to the polls and vote claiming to be Jack Smith?

Think about it? The voter ID is geared towards Illegal Immigrants but will dienfranchise those who are disabled, elderly and others who can't get their ID Cards in time for this Election!

talking about this yesterday and said that the Indiana law required not just a photo ID, but that the photo ID had to be a driver's license. She was going on about how that disenfranchised those like the elderly who are no longer able to drive and the blind or medically unable to get a driver's license. Is this correct for the Indiana law? If so, that is going way too far, IMO. That does disenfranchise voters. According to Randi, the Indiana law disenfranchises 13% of those already registered to vote.

Anyone have any clarity on that?

you can use a State ID card that looks like a DL but it's issued only to provide ID. Here in Ga. you can also use a State College ID card. That was one of the gripes they had here...why is a student ID card from Ga. Tech OK but a student ID from Emory University not acceptable.

The only valid objections I've heard were:

Older poor people can't drive so they can't get to the facility to get an ID card.

Poor people can't afford the $20 fee for an ID card, and if they can't find their birth certificate, they'd also have to pay $25 to get a copy of THAT!


Ga. will issue a State ID card free if you can't afford one, but I don't think there's any way around the cost of a replacement birth certificate.

Democratic Activists might take on the project of making certain
that all Dems in their state have the proper ID. Some states
give the ID free. Activists could canvass and drive people to
get the ID. There are 2to 4 years between any election.

Our arguments get weaker. Sometimes it means changing stategy.

Dems should be working NOW on getting people who don't have a proper ID card a way to get one!

and the money Kerry-Edwards has goes to court cases they CAN effect in Ohio that are still ongoing.

The wording on this article is a bit deceptive as it should highlight more that what they are looking for is money for RESEARCH on voting matters - not court cases as Kerry-Edwards money still supports.