Voter photo ID is a solution looking for a problem.

This voter ID thing is 100% creation of the Rethuglicans in their pursuit to manipulate the election system in their favor...as is the fact that they are behind the flawed electronic voting devices built and designed by companies that fund Rethuglican campaigns.  I am therefore certain that the neo-con packed Sup Ct will undoubtedly uphold the law in question.

The liberals still trying to get revenge for the 2000 race in Florida.

Reduce voter fraud?  Are you kidding?  If someone wants to fraudulently abuse a vote, they're going to find a way that can work around an ID system.  We've got scanners here in CT to cut out fraud, but even with this new equipment, its not fool proof.  If locks on doors don't stop robberies, and security alarm systems can be gotten around, what other things can proponents of ID's do with that sort of documentation?  Its a control thing and a limiting thing.  If you register to vote that's it.  Its enough already

Voter ID's are largely a backdoor way for Red states to raise revenue, what repubs otherwise call a tax increase. It is amazing this nation has survived and thrived so long without them. I'd rather have the Court allow all votes to be counted (remember 2000 and the Gore victory)!  This smells of a repub setup for the same skewed result.

How difficult is it seriously to muster up a photo ID.  I find it hard to believe that the Demos will be that affected by such a requirement.

No secret that the essence of Republican election strategy is voter supression. They no doubt consider maximum citizen participation as an ideal in our electoral system to be as quaint a notion as habeas corpus, the Geneva conventions or defending our constitution.

Another reason states that issued driver licenses to illegals should have their Federal aid withheld.  We will probably have 2-4 million illegals voting with all the dead people in Milwauckee, Chicago, New York City, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Miami, and on Indian Reservations for Clinton in 08.

Yes!!!  A must to stop,voter frod !!!

If you are incapable of completing the simple task of getting a photo ID you can't possibly be competent enough to make a decision on who should run our country.  Dem's just won't be able to round up homeless people and buy their votes with with free lunches anymore. If voting is important to you get a photo ID. If not don't vote.

What voter fraud? Election fraud is the real problem.

close jerry, just substitute justice for revenge.

Democrats just don't want to go to the trouble of digging up their dead voters, and taking a current photo.

What democrats never seem to mention when arguing against voter id laws is exactly how the poor,minorities,elderly,etc. are being disenfranchised,since all these bills provide for free photo id's to those who can't afford them. What exactly are the Dems afraid of?

What democrats never seem to mention when arguing against voter id laws is exactly how the poor,minorities,elderly,etc. are being disenfranchised,since all these bills provide for free photo id's to those who can't afford them. What exactly are the Dems afraid of?

How many US citizens of voting age don't have a photo ID?  Does anyone have actual statistics instead of all this liberal/conservative rhetoric?

This is another Republican scheme to 'supress' black voter turnout.

An ex-Supreme Court Cheif justice, William Rehnquist began his political career by challenging minority voters (mainly Hispanic) in Arizona.

It's an old Republican tradition  !!

Let's see what Bush is going to say at the UN about democracy in Burma (Myramar) !!

Why is it the liberals don't understand you MUST be a citizen to vote????? The western states, CA OR WA and a few others are so damn liberal you just check a box saying you are a citizen, NO CONTROLS WHAT-SO-EVER!!!
Millions of illegals do make a difference in the vote turnout.  Prove you are a citizen and VOTE IN ENGLISH enough of this diversity crap.  If you want to live in this country and vote learn english if not GO THE HELL HOME!

I agree with Bruce.  Prove this is a problem.  Hey, Rome, I hope you washed your hands after you pulled your "probably" number outta your heinie!

It used to be a person coud walk down the street minding his own business and not be harassed because he didn't have an ID.  Now, in some states, you can be held by the police until your identity is established.  I remember when we thought it was a great abuse of power that totalitarin governments required people to have identity cards and travel permits to travel within their own country.  Just watch many movies from the 1950-1970s and you'll see this to be true.  Now, you have to have ID just like those people in totalitarian countries used to and they have also become internal passports for air, train and bus travel.  We are becoming exactly like those countries we used to consider overly paranoid and restrictive.  I guess the next step is to have intelligence tests right along with the IDs.  Of course, that would restrict half of the right-wing and make the politically correct extremely happy.  The point is voting is a guaranteed right for American citizens.  To restrict this in any way is unconstitutional, plain and simple.  So what if a few people vote who don't possess ID.  There is no Constitutional mandate requiring one.

Short and sweet Bruce.  Great comment.  Nuanced nailed Jerry correctly, substitute justice.

Dave in WI & John in PA...good points.

If I could trust this SC to come up with a wise, far reaching conclusion, I would be happy.  I just don't see the scholarship or foresight in this court.  Maybe they will surprise us, and settle this issue with clarity, justice and constitutional dignity.

"This is another Republican scheme to 'supress' black voter turnout"

Democrats who run those districts, and then always short them on machines don't need any help with that.

Suppress the vote - that is funny.  The DEMS know that requiring a photo would put a damper on their annual voter fraud raising drives.  Their yearly attempt to register the dead, fake voters, and illegals could be setback if the Supreme Courts upholds voter IDs.

I suggest that both liberals and conservatives take a look at Oregon's Vote By Mail system.  I receive my ballot at home with a ballot and a second document that I sign to verify who I am.  I return both in two envelopes:  One with my completed ballot and a separate envelope that contains my signature.  When the elections office receives my ballot, the signature envelope is opened and the signature is compared to my official voter registration card signature.  (It is a lot easier to fake an ID than to fake a signaure.)  It the signature matches, the still sealed second ballot envelope is allowed to proceed and is opened after the deadline for returning ballots - the same system as all states use for absentee ballots.  If the original envelope is undeliverable, the envelope is returned to the elections office and the name is stricken from the voter registration lists which is a simple way to cull those voters who have died or who have moved without informing the elections office.  We have used this system for a number of years without claims of fraud and with a complete paper trail.  I know Oregon is considered my some as a 'different' kind of place, but I truly believe we have a nearly fool-proof system of casting and counting votes.  To those who object to our system I would ask how do you currently deal with your state's absentee voters?

the real fraud issue is absentee voting.

Voter fraud my ass - the photo requirement is aimed at reducing the elderly, poor, racial minority and disabled votes who tend to be Democratic votes - it's obviously just another corrupt plan by the Republicans who know they can't win in a fair fight and never will.

Again this is classic Rove-style Republican strategy - package the voter tax/voter disenfranchisement in an otherwise appealing wrapper - voter ID - and hide its true evil intention from an otherwise misinformed and intellectually impotent populous - to suppress minority, poor, and elderly voter turnout that otherwise would vote Democrat. However, I will say this - if the law is upheld, the Democrats better get on the bandwagon, inform people about the requirement in all languages, and get these people their state IDs.

It's effectively a last-ditch voter suppression issue - the last place the voter can be intercepted & turned away.  

Each ID check adds a few crucial seconds to that narrow window to the one day, where 200+ million people have to vote, in person, for the most important office in the land.  A few thousand votes in each area this strategy is executed in could make all the difference.  Expect long lines in strategic polling place locations, made longer by this.  Bring portable folding chairs and make sure you're in line by poll closing time.

I agree totally with William.  You MUST be a U.S. citizen to vote.  If you can't prove citizenship, or speak and read English, you shouldn't be voting in our elections.  This is all about the Dems getting control from the votes of ILLEGAL aliens.  LEGAL aliens take classes to learn the language and have documentation to prove they are citizens.  Yes, we should count all votes.  And all votes that are counted should be from living, breathing, non-incarcerated, over 18 year old CITIZENS who are able to prove it! My state already requires all of us to have a drivers' licence or a state ID.  I'm willing to prove who I am and that I have the right to vote.  Why is this so scary to some of you?  Wouldn't you like to know that the winning candidate REALLY won the election and there was no cheating involved by either side?

Willliam Beasley / I'm with you, I do not believe showing an i.d. is going to keep any legal voter from voting, but it could help stop illegal voters from voting, what's the down side?

Bad, bad idea. With the usual touch of Republican jive. Stated intent will be to prevent voter fraud. Desired intent will be to reduce the number of participants not voting Republican.

Joe: How about 77,000 dead people still on voter rolls in Californias LA County alone. Or 78,000 in New York.[of which 3 of 4 of these dead people went for Democrats in the 2004 election].Or ACORN getting hit with a huge fine by the FEC in 2002,2004,and 2006 for entering non-existant persons including ''Paul Revere'',and ''Homer Simpson''into voter rolls. Or even the rampant incidence of identity theft which is a proven,increasing problem in America.
            The excuses being used by Democrats are asinine. Even those persons having their drivers licences denied them for DUI/DWI and failure to pay child support in all 50 states can get an identification card at little expense and many states waive these very nominal fees[12.00-20.00$ in most states],for the poor. There is no defense that the Democrats can make,as they are saying that its also OK for the poor to drive without licence,and therefore,without insurance.[as most illegal immigrants already do. Democrats see these as the key to cementing holds in congressional districts where illegal aliens predominate].Include into this mix the purchase of alcohol,and materials under Homeland Security guidelines that are restricted-purchase requiring identification[ homemade bombmaking materials such as certain solvents,chemical powders,and fertilizers].It is ridiculous to infer that positive identification is not needed or required for these actions which include voting.

Also see: The Poughkeepsie [NY]Journal Oct.26,2006:''The Dead Cast Their Votes''

United Press International Nov.31,2003:''Analysis:Few Controls On Illegal Voting''

The Seattle Times July 23,2007:''Charges Filed Against Seven in States Biggest Case of Voter Fraud''

How can you have voter fraud? your name is on a list, when you show your voter registration card, they cross your name off the list... how can you abuse it?

I am confused...

==>I suggest that both liberals and conservatives take a look at Oregon's Vote By Mail system. <==

No problems with this system.  Except, just like Hillary getting tens of thousands of dollars in donations from a few people living in crummy house in California, there will be ballots being sent to 293 people living at a ranch home in Austin Tx.

Voter registration rolls provide the firt and best defense. There is no reason states can't keep off the rolls and keep from voting any illegals, deceased, out-of-state, and duplicate voters just based upon the usual name and address info.  The only real use for a photo ID is to keep someone from impersonating a legitimate voter who does not vote (if they vote, the double vote can be caught). How often does that happen? In my opinion not often enough to justify the potential to supress the already shamefully low turnout in this country. Personally I'd go with the inked finger to prevent double voting since it would make clear who had and had not voted and might shame more people into voting.

BTW, voter suppression is what Gonzogate is all about. Do you agree Z?

I do not see what the problem is with requiring proof that you are the registered voter voting.  I have to provide my ID when I fly on an airplane, when I apply for a job, when I write or cash a check, even when I use a credit card - I have to show my ID to prove that I am the person using the card.  Are you saying the majority of voters are so poor and old they do not have a checking account or drivers license?  If they are, there will be a program available to provide such ID free of charge.  ID could be taken care of at the Voters Registration Office.  If they are college students, they have student IDs - and how many of them do not have their driver's licens?  I would not have a problem showing my ID to vote.  I think a bigger problem is that the areas of predominately Democratic voters often do not have enough voting machines and workers to handle the number of people who want to vote.  There are problems with our voting system, but providing an ID is not one of them.  This is just an excuse for those who oppose it to permit those not qualified to vote anyway.  There are too many voting that are not elgible to vote, and that is a greater problem.  

Robert: This is unfactual. Vagrancy laws utilized since the turn of the last century have consistantly demanded that one could be held without showing identification,to be released prior to the constitutional right to trial activating itself,usually a period of 24[or less]-72 hours. Indeed,it appears within the 1887 Police Training Manual of the New York City Police Dept. and was consistantly utilized during the Great Depression and beyond. The first serious challenge to these vagrancy and loitering laws [which include ''no apparant purpose'' ''no support'',and ''no means of identification''] does not appear until 1972 in PAPACHRISTOU vs.JACKSONVILLE[USSC 405 156,161-162].These anti-vagrancy and loitering laws continue to be enforced in varying fashion unto the extant hour,to ''move bums along'' and break up large congregations which have no ''apparent purpose''or are suspected by police of potential threat or criminal activity.[riot,assault on police officers,gang activity,vandalism,etc.] Indeed this was the center of another USSC decision we will now examine.
          It would not become the ''rightwing''to mount its later challenge to PAPACHRISTOU,but the liberal city of Chicago in CITY OF CHICAGO vs.MORALES[1999,USSC 527,41],where congregations of gang members on neighborhood streets created a threat to citizens demanding that the police do something about the problem. Police rounded up individuals bearing no identification or hanging out with ''no apparant purpose''other than to create an intimidative environment. The liberal bloc threw this out without remarking on the no-ID aspect but due to its hewing to PAPACHRISTOU,that allowed nomimal loitering which did not carry with it a threat or plan of violence or illegal action. However,as the high court acceded,vast leniancy was granted to the police to determine whether or not loitering individuals or groups posed threat. Again,police continue to be allowed,as they have been for the last century and beyond[1857],to demand identification of those these feel are unlawfully loitering or are itinerant vagrants.
         Then too,is the down-to-the-wire nature of these elections which have seen these decided by a mere handful of votes. 2000 Florida was one example. The Allen-Webb contest in Virginia for the Senate in 2006 another. Ohio in 2004 still another. It is completely within the boundries of reason to expect that those who vote have the right to vote. That are,in accordance with the US Constitution, ''citizens'' as set forth in the 15th,19th and 26th  Amendments. It is for voting registrars to determine this condition by its most basic province,that of legal identification,which as I have heretofore adressed,is cheap and easy to obtain,is of legal form,and need not wait until Election Day in order to get.

Imagine you are at the Constitutional convention in 1787.  Did anyone there ever conceive of all the technology that would come forth 200 years later?  If you go by the W/Rove banner, people who would decide this would be strict constructionists and allow voyes wiothout voter ID.  It goes to show that when the repukes/W/Rush/Rove say they want strict constructionist, they want THEIR strict constructionists.  As I mentioned above, I want to see the scholarship and academic arguments from both sides.  I don't want claims of suppression and anticipated low turnout.  Come on Chief Justice Roberts, put some work into this, and tell those 2 pit bulls Scalia and Thomas to think first before speaking.  OBTW William B, I have to show my ID before I vote here in California.  I usually show my military retiree card (had to get that jab in chicken hawks) plus my CA driver's license.  My 19 year old sone shows his student ID or drivers license.

Lee, don't confuse the liberals with facts.  It only makes them complain more or they will call you a fact-o-phobe.  Oh, don't forget the homeless people they picked up off the street in Milwaukee, gave cigarettes, and then drove to the voting booth (after they sliced the tires of the Republican "Get out the vote" vehicles.

Just another suggestion from Oregon.  How many counties does your state have?  And what is to prevent a person from registering to vote in each one of them?  All voter registration in Oregon is done at the county level but all county registration records are kept on a master computer file by the Secretary of State.  No duplicate registration.  Simple, huh?  

If/when the Roberts Court upholds the requirement for voter photo ID's, where do the Republicans go next to suppress voting - stool samples? I doubt any system will ease the paranoia of RomeIsBurning or William Beasley.

P.S. I'm sorry Mr. Scher, but Wisconsin charges for drivers licences and photo IDs and the Feds charge for passports. The same Repubs who cry for photo ID's are the ones who will bitch about being taxed to provide them free to those of low income. They don't come free, the cost is paid for by someone.

The Oregon Vote By Mail system - it works, it's efficient, it's safe, and dosen't require a huge infusion of new tax dollars!


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40032-2004Dec31.html

1st we use I.D's ,then micro chips ,then WWII tattoos and microchips ,then property of the state. Isn't this supposed to be land of the free?

I don't see a problem with requiring photo IDs. Most of the people tending polling locations are senior citizens (at least in my area). Their keen eyesight is perfect for the task.

What's more, requiring photo IDs has kept kids from buying beer and out of nightclubs for years. It's not like people make fake IDs or anything.

Oh, wait a minute....

We don't need no sicken ID like we don't need no sicken borders.  Everyone should be able to vote including Americans.  I thank my liberal friends every day - God bless Mexico.

What next from the repubs? Ah yes, the good ol' poll tax.

E. Hutch, your comment about homeless voters is more denigrating to homeless people than your intended Democratic target.  Do you realize that homeless people also have the RIGHT to vote?  

Only September 25, 2007 and the Republicans are well on their way to rigging and stealing another election.  

Well Tx. repubs found a way to assure the red everytime. Its called re-districting!

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):