On Supreme Court ID ruling: Calm Down

Email Print posted by ProfRich 04/29/2008 12:41:35 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
When I heard what the Supreme Court had done I was as depressed as anyone in America.  I could hardly post last night.  Today through the miracle or research and rational thought I have realized, while this is not good, it is far less disastrous to Democratic chances than I had previously believed.

I began by asking myself what states might be affected by this law?
I figured these states would have to meet two requirements.  They would have to be potential Democratic wins that won't be blowouts and they had to be in GOP control at the state level.
Lets tour the country.

AR, CO, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NM, OR, WA and WV have Dem Houses, Senates and Governors.

AL, CA, CT, HI, LA, MN, MS, RI and VT have both houses controlled by Dems but the Governor is a Republican.  Luckily that means they should be in no danger of passing voter ID law.

KY, MI, NY, PA and TN have Dem Houses and Governors but GOp Senates and should be safe.

DE, MT, OK, VA and WI have Democrat Senates and Governors but GOP Houses.  Oklahoma is a 1 Rep margin and could pass the law but it is going Republican no matter what so who cares.

FL, GA, ID, MO, ND, SC, SD, TX and UT have the entire government controlled by Republicans.  The only state here that is even close to a swing state if Florida but I personally don't believe that should be part of an Obama electoral strategy and haven't since this election began.

The remaining states include AK, IN, NE, KS and WY which don't even remotely matter as they are solidly GOP.

The three remaining are:
Arizona which has a GOP legislature and a Dem governor so a veto could stop.  Or even a pocket veto given the timeline.  AZ should go McCain in any event so this is really irrelevant.

Ohio is a big one.  The GOP has the Legislature but Governor Ted Strickland is a Dem and should be able to veto the bill.  The GOP does not have the votes to override.  I don't have Ohio in my electoral strategy anyway but it would be nice to win.  Would effectively cinch the election.  The GOP has to have it, the Dems don't.

Nevada is the big one that has me concerned.   Senate is Republican by one seat, Governor is Republican but the House is Democrat by 12.

Ultimately if the Democrats can just present a unified front against this partisan nonsense on the state level, the measure should have no effect except for securing Florida which I think was lost anyway.
Of course, the Democrats have an almost superhuman ability to fuck themselves so....
Maybe bloggers and talk show hosts can keep the pressure on the state Dems and make sure we don't screw this up!

Tough break, Ken.

I am gonna follow this up with a look at Senate races.

< Six Degrees of Barack Obama | BARACK OBAMA: PROFILE IN COURAGE!!! >
 Display:
On Supreme Court ID ruling: Calm Down | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
For the record (none / 0)

Governors- 28 Dem, 22 GOP

State Senates-  29 Dem, 21 GOP

State Houses-  30 Dem, 19 GOP (Nebraska is unicameral)

One party, both houses-  Dem- 23, GOP 14, Split-13

Leg and Governor one party- Dem-14 ,GOP-9

There are 573 more Democrat State Reps than Republican and 103 more State Senators.

So, bobo, this is a conservative country? 

 

 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 01:37:40 PM EST

ID ruling and the Senate races (none / 0)

The only race that seems likely to be affected by the voter ID ruling among Senate races is South Dakota.  Right now that seems to be relatively safely Dem but this bill could conceivably slide it over.

I suppose it makes it more likely the GOP will win in GA, SC and TX but that was almost certainly going to happen anyway.

If anyone wants to look at the impact on house races, have at it.  Too much work for me. 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 01:48:37 PM EST

South Dakota (none / 0)
They already require a government issued photo ID when voters go to the polls.

South Dakota is representative of the future of voting in America.

See ya!!!!

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 06:50:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mississippi (none / 0)
Mississippi is on the march!

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 07:01:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well Done (none / 0)
Very good breakdown.

by ihavenobias on 04/29/2008 02:26:55 PM EST

Rich, I hate to burst your bubble. (none / 0)
Naw, I’m lyin! I loooovvvee bursting your bubble!

Your analysis misses a couple of major points.

If the election is a blowout in either direction, Voter ID will not matter in 2008.

If the election is close, the only states where Voter ID will matter are the battleground states: OH, MO, FL, IN, AZ, NM, CO, NV, IA, MI, PA, NH. You could have saved yourself some work by concentrating on these states.
 
Let’s look at current law to gauge a state’s proclivity in demanding a photo ID. My belief is that any state shaded blue is already a great candidate.
deal with this
So, using your analysis, along with current law:
AZ will go McCain.
FL will go McCain.
IN already has Voter ID.
MO is even stronger on Voter ID than Indiana.
NM already has some form of Voter ID, and may require photo.
CO already has some form of Voter ID, and may require photo.
OH already has some form of Voter ID, and may require photo.
NV is worth watching, and I’ll bet they get Voter ID.
That leaves IA, MI, PA, NH, which you say will not implement Voter ID, and I won’t argue.

Once again, I invite you to use this handy map tool, and tell me how you get to 270 electoral votes with Barack Obama.

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 06:45:43 PM EST

We'll see (none / 0)

If the Democrats of New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada go along with this, this party deserves to lose.  I fail to understand why Strickland would sign this into law.

I know you rae really excited you found a cool map but its a shame you can't analyze issues beyond a google search and what Rush tells you.

When these states began to tighten voting restrctions who was in charge?  Did they Dem houses? senates? governors?  

Why assume that if they have any voter ID they will automatically get stricter?  Maybe they will say we have this and it is enough?

This is asinine.  Post when the bills get introduced and then we'll follow them.  Otherwise I think you are talking out your ass.  Passing these measure would be elecotral suicide for the Dems.  Not gonna happen.

Then, in 2009, Congress will pass a law making this practice illegal and President Obama will sign it and it will be behind us.  The End. 

by ProfRich on 04/29/2008 08:03:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I love correcting Rich! (none / 0)
"Then, in 2009, Congress will pass a law making this practice illegal and President Obama will sign it and it will be behind us."

That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

As originally written, the Constitution allowed states to abridge, disallow, or discriminate against the right of a person to vote for president for any of the following reasons:
  1. Black skin color.
  2. Brown skin color.
  3. Yellow skin color.
  4. Red skin color.
  5. Lack of a penis.
  6. Lack of a drivers license.
  7. Lack of a social security card.
  8. Lack of property.
  9. Lack of enough money to pay the poll tax.
  10. Conviction of a felony.
  11. And any other reason that a state legislature might devise for discriminating against a person.
In other words, as originally written, the Constitution said a state legislature might allow people to vote for president, or it might disallow people to vote. Furthermore, a state legislature could discriminate against any group of people for any reason by denying them voting rights.

Only after subsequent Amendments to the Constitution, was voter discrimination based on race or sex or poll taxes outlawed.

There is no Amendment guaranteeing the right to vote to people lacking drivers licenses. Therefore state legislatures may discriminate against these people.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld this State's Right, and you crawled up into a fetal position and started sucking your thumb.
 
The End.

by KenTX on 04/29/2008 08:25:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
and of course conservatives (none / 0)
Are the ones trying to keep people with

Black skin color.
Brown skin color.
Yellow skin color.
Red skin color.
Lack of a penis.(women   and eunuch trolls from tx)

from voting because  thats the only way they can win ,conservatism is not popular. But winning isn't in their future  and that makes my happy go higher and higher.

:-)

by Chinese Democracy on 04/30/2008 11:05:01 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Constitutional quiz for Ken and fun facts (none / 0)
Show me in the constitution were anyone other than a member of the electoral college is "entitled" to vote for the president.

I'll help you out HERE is the part dealing with presidents.

Here I'll help you out some more
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

While factually correct your post left out one important item. The States are not compelled to allow anyone to vote for president. In fact it wasn't until 1836 that a State allowed a general election to decide who the electors would be.

Now the bonus round. What State was the first to hold a general election to decide electors?

by Hubble on 05/02/2008 09:21:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks Hubble. (none / 0)
That is indeed a fun Constitutional quiz. But I really don't need any help, because I answered your exact question several months ago.

The troubling thing about the recent Voter ID decision is the fact that the results should have been obvious to any high school level constitutional scholar, much less a Supreme Court Justice. I can't imagine how even a far left liberal activist justice could try to bastardize the Constitution like they attempted to do. The majority should have been 9-0, not 6-3.

If the state of Indiana wants to demand a drivers license when you go to the polls, then by god, the law is obviously on the side of the state.

by KenTX on 05/02/2008 11:51:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
On Supreme Court ID ruling: Calm Down | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: