SCOTUS old farts deliberately disenfranchise voters

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit

Hillary Clinton wins in Indiana with the help of this voter ID law. Grandpa McCain wins the White House after 17 other states pass voter ID laws?

This decision magnifies the importance of electing a Democrat in November to appoint sane people who will actually uphold the Constitution, instead of more Republican partisans who are using their power to determine another election. 

The basis of the law is fraudulent. The arguments are lies. There is scant evidence of any VOTER fraud in the United States, while ELECTION FRAUD like this voter ID argument is rampant. 

Student Association for Voter Empowerment

Press Release


YOUNG VOTERS CONDEMN SUPREME COURT DECISION ON VOTER ID LAW



Contact: Matthew Segal, SAVE Executive Director, 847-502-5012,
matthew.segal@savevoting.or g.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 28, 2008

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a particularly discriminating election law today; the case, appealed in the seventh circuit court, requires registered voters in the state of Indiana to provide a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.

Although the implications of mandating a photo ID might seem benign given their ubiquitous use in airports, government agencies and banks, there are tens of thousands of indigent, non-driving, non-traveling, and non-banking Americans-both young and old-who do not possess such documentation. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan estimates that in her state alone, some 200,000 eligible voters do not possess driver's licenses or any similar forms of photo identification.

Justice John Paul Steven's remarks were troubling: "[The law] is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" he said.

Yet there is little integrity in the precedent it sets for student voters. In a hearing held by the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) this past July, several college students testified about the inability to prove domicile in their college districts merely because their photo ID was from a different part of the state or another state entirely. Photo ID laws can therefore prevent out-of-state college students from registering in the district where they attend school. The substitutions for a photo ID are also not easily obtainable because colleges and universities generally pay utility and other bills for students that live in dormitories.

Unless students are to change their out-of state drivers licenses or residency entirely, many young voters will be forced to vote absentee or provisionally, lowering voter efficacy and making the registration process more bureaucratic, time-consuming, and cumbersome. Changing state residency can also create complications for out-of-state students on certain scholarship guidelines or financial aid contracts.

 "I am deeply disturbed by the prospect that voter ID laws are not considered an access barrier," said Matthew Segal, the executive director of SAVE. "I know from hundreds of conversations, testimony at our hearing, and evidence on the ground that voter ID laws have deterred out-of-state residents from voting where they attend school nine months of the year. In light of fantastic youth turnout in both presidential primaries, I am skeptical of our ability to maintain momentum as we move forward with this disproportionately discriminatory law."

SAVE is a non-partisan, non-profit organization on over 25 college campuses, founded and run by students, with a mission to increase youth voter turnout by removing access barriers and promoting stronger civic education. To learn more, please visit www.savevoting.org.


###


--
Matthew Segal
Executive Director
Student Association for Voter Empowerment
1615 L Street NW, Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036
Matthew.Segal@savevoting.or g
847-502-5012
www.savevoting.org

< Voter ID is now the law of the land. START LIKIN' IT!!! | Rev. Wright's New Speeches >
 Display:
A lib president would just appoint more activist judges

We need more conservative justices who ignore political party and ideology and focus on The Constitution only, which is what we have now.

PS---This is why it's so important to vote Republican this fall!

by ihavenobias on 04/28/2008 09:39:33 PM EST


Activists judges overturn state laws like "Voter ID" by declaring them unconstitutional.

Conservative judges adhere to Originalism, and uphold the prerogatives of state legislatures.

by KenTX on 04/28/2008 10:11:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was too busy reading about those interesting three symbols at the top of the page in your link to get to the actual writing about "activist judges".

I save everyone the trouble and provide the actual definition:

Activist Judges=Judges who aren't blatantly conservative.

There, see how easy that was? :)  And to think people would spend paragraphs trying to explain it!

by ihavenobias on 04/28/2008 10:18:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
soothing sounds

Can you tell how happy I am?

Please don't hate me because I'm beauuuteeeefulll.

(I can't help it.)

by KenTX on 04/28/2008 10:45:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
that by your very own definition of judicial activism, conservative justices on the SCOTUS, particularly Scalia and Thomas, are more likely to be activists than the liberal justices, particularly Breyer and Ginsburg.

Lori Ringhand, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, examined the voting records of the Supreme Court justices from 1994 to 2005. Because judicial activism is a vague concept, she applied a reasonable, objective standard. In the study, which is forthcoming in Constitutional Commentary, justices were considered to have voted in an activist way when they voted to overturn a federal or state law, or one of the court’s own precedents.

The conservative justices were far more willing than the liberals to strike down federal laws — clearly an activist stance, since they were substituting their own judgment for that of the people’s elected representatives in Congress. Justice Thomas voted to overturn federal laws in 34 cases and Justice Scalia in 31, compared with just 15 for Justice Stephen Breyer. When state laws were at issue, the liberals were more activist. Add up the two categories, and the conservatives and liberals turned out to be roughly equal. But Justices Thomas and Scalia, who are often held out as models of nonactivism, voted to strike down laws in more of these cases than Justice Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the court’s two Clinton appointees.

By the third measure, overturning the court’s own precedents (for which data were available only up to 2000), the conservatives were far more activist. Justice Thomas voted to overturn precedent 23 times and Justice Scalia 19 times, while the court’s four liberals did so in 10 cases or fewer.

by jawill11 on 04/29/2008 02:51:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Still living in 1952.

by zenie on 04/29/2008 12:13:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I know think McCain has to be considered a favorite for the White House.  This is a devestating blow against reason, voting rights (first ever move towards more restriction of rights) and the Democrats chances in 2008.

I am curious to see if the market drops like it did on the announcement of Bush v. Gore. 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 01:09:51 AM EST


what is going to happen of McCain wins the election. This is nothing. If the court gets one more rightwing judge, we are really going to see some eff'ed up decisions. This must be stopped at all costs. Many of those judges are about to keel over. Getting a Democrat into the White House is vital to return balance to the court.

By the way, I'm not so sure this is going to help HRC. It's her lower middle class white supporters that are going to be hurt with this. Us black folks for the most part are good to go with this. We know better than to not have proper ID. It could get us locked up if we are stopped for a speeding ticket or anything.

by mijoh on 04/29/2008 02:17:02 PM EST


My concern is people who have misdemeanor of traffic warrants might not acquire or show the id for fear of getting arrested.
Since you are interested, you might read my post on why this may not be such a big deal

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 02:28:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
 Display: