Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1020scotus-voterID20-ON.html" target="_blank">http://www.azcentral.com/news/ articles/1020scotus-voterID20-ON.html</a> >>Arizona voters will have to present identification at the polls on Nov. 7 after all. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday that Arizona can go ahead with requiring voters to present a photo ID, starting with next month's general election, as part of the Proposition 200 that voters passed in 2004. The ruling overturns an Oct. 5 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which put the voter ID rules on hold this election cycle. The Supreme Court on Friday did not decide whether the new voter ID rules are constitutional. That decision is still pending in federal district court. Instead, the court decided that the 9th Circuit made a procedural error by granting an injunction to put the new rules on hold without waiting for the district court to explain its reasons for not granting an injunction. "The facts in these cases are hotly contested and 'no bright line separates permissible election-related regulation from unconstitutional infringements,' " the Justices wrote. "Given the imminence of the election and the inadequate time to resolve the factual disputes, our action today shall of necessity allow the election to proceed without an injunction suspending the voter identification rules." The new voter ID rules were passed, in part, to keep illegal immigrants and other non-citizens from voting. Opponents have argued that legal voters, especially the poor and the elderly, might also be disenfranchised because of the rules. In order to cast a ballot at the polls, voters must show a photo ID with current street address or two forms of identification, such as a utility bill or car registration, with name and street address. <<
Originally Posted By debtee At the risk of offending anyone I have to say: What a waste of time and money to have this go to the supreme court for a ruling! Especially after the international community has been watching the US struggle with BIG problems after Hurricane Katrina! I recall showing my drivers licence when we last voted, to check our address as current and no public debate about it occured in our courts, it's just common sense to make sure you are the person you say you are! Why don't they just get on with it and find more important things to occupy your courts!
Originally Posted By Altadisdude debtee you didn't offend me but I think this is really something important that the courts should be dealing with. Many people alive and dead dealt with the specter of Jim Crow voting laws designed to disenfranchise certain segments of the population from voting. If the ID or bills require payment, and some people who have the right to vote can not afford them, then you've set a financial bar to voting just like the illegal poll taxes of the past. My guess is that the 9th circus(heh) will revisit the case, look at the reasons why the district court found the way it did this time, and rule exactly the way it did the first time sending it back to the Supreme Court for another round. The only thing that ticks me off is that we’ll have to wait for all that to happen, and tax payers will pay for the legal gears to grind, when they simply could have taken up the underlying issue and put it to rest the first time round.
Originally Posted By debtee Well I'm pleased you are not offended Altadisdude as that was not my intent. <If the ID or bills require payment, and some people who have the right to vote can not afford them, then you've set a financial bar to voting just like the illegal poll taxes of the past.> I read it that you only had to show proof of ID such as a drivers license or a ultility bill, it does not have to be a paid bill they are just looking at your street address not your financial situation. It's just another case of red tape taking up valuable resources that could be used to actually help people in my opinion.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<It's just another case of red tape taking up valuable resources that could be used to actually help people in my opinion.>> This is an understatement. When you consider that 20% of all US prison population are Mexican citizens. Voting is very important in the US. George W Bush became President based on basically 2000 votes in Florida. There are literally ten of thousands of people that vote in both Florida and New York ( mostly for Democratic candidates ). Voter fraud is rampant in the US. Michael Jackson, Mary Poppins and Peter Pan all voted in the Illinois last year. We had someone vote twice in Atlanta and yes they were able to prove they voted twice. I also believe you need to show ID to vote.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I also believe you need to show ID to vote." You mean it should be required? Because it's not required right now.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 I have always showed ID in Washington State to vote. I mean, duh, that's a no-brainer. Now that there are mail-in ballots only - a very very dumb thing, I believe - I hope they can maintain a system whereby they know who people are who are voting. I cannot conceive of a system in which you don't have to prove who you are to vote. Also, the state of Arizona has offered free ID cards for voting only, so the ability to pay is no factor here.
Originally Posted By alexbook May I just point out that the title of this thread "Supreme Court says YES to checking ID's to vote" is slightly misleading, given the third paragraph in the original post [my emphasis added]: >>The Supreme Court on Friday did *not* decide whether the new voter ID rules are constitutional. That decision *is* *still* *pending* in federal district court.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer But voters will have to show ID to vote this November in Arizona. Hopefully it will be the law in all 50 states and the District of Columbia soon....
