Indiana Voter ID Law Upheld

In a huge victory for fair and honest elections, the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring a photo ID to vote:

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

Most of the left opposed the measure because it puts a crimp in the long time practice of labor unions and other Democratic party constituencies of stuffing ballot boxes with fake registrants who go from precinct to precinct casting votes.

Having to show an ID will solve that problem. And the excuse that it will depress the turnout of minorities and seniors is ill-founded because the law allows for those who can't afford a state ID to get one at a substantially reduced cost.

There will be other challenges to this concept but the court majority looks pretty solid. This bodes well for a future where every vote will be counted and voters will be able to vote only once.



In a huge victory for fair and honest elections, the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring a photo ID to vote:

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

Most of the left opposed the measure because it puts a crimp in the long time practice of labor unions and other Democratic party constituencies of stuffing ballot boxes with fake registrants who go from precinct to precinct casting votes.

Having to show an ID will solve that problem. And the excuse that it will depress the turnout of minorities and seniors is ill-founded because the law allows for those who can't afford a state ID to get one at a substantially reduced cost.

There will be other challenges to this concept but the court majority looks pretty solid. This bodes well for a future where every vote will be counted and voters will be able to vote only once.