http://www.kansas.com/news/updates/story/386802.html

WASHINGTON - States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
...
Indiana has a "valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,' " said Justice John Paul Stevens in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Stevens said that Indiana's desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law was designed to combat. Evidence of voters being inconvenienced by the law's requirements also is scant. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver's license serves as the identification.
...

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

Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens," Souter said.

The targets of the law, he said, are "voters who are poor and old."

What else should we expect from the libs on the SCOTUS.

Amen. I'm all for the photo ID law.
Prevents voter fraud.

We require photo ID for CIP - why not for voting?

It could just be our line of work, but I don't know of anyone who doesn't have a state ID/drivers license. Has anyone out there on BOL run into a situation where somebody just cannot afford to get their ID?

I, too, like the idea of presenting valid photo ID. My drivers license is good up until my 65th birthday.

And prevents people who don't drive or have a passport from voting. Right on!

Barb, I know you're from NJ. We do offer government issued photo IDs. You can go to an MVC officer and get one. And it is not a driver's license.

I'm sorry. But this is one of my more "conservative" issues. Especially since voter fraud seems to be a big concern in my neck of the woods.

No apology needed. I was really thinking of people in my extended family, who always lived in the city and never drove. The only reason they'd have to get a gov't issued photo ID would be to be able to vote, and that would be in addition to registering to vote.

I know the whole Liberal philosophy is to "Vote Early and Vote Often" But even in the Peoples Republic of NJ, you do have to be registered to vote, before you can vote.

So, let me get this straight, your concern is not just that they would have to get a Photo ID to vote, but also that they would have to register to vote before they can vote???

But then again, I'm sure that in the Liberal bastion of North Jersey, they would let you vote anyway.

No Bimmer, you've not understood my point. My concern, as minor as it is, is that after registering to vote, my mother-in-law, for example, would also have had to obtain a photo ID in order to be able to vote.

That would be doing 2 things, where others only have to do 1 thing. You can tell the difference between 2 things and 1 thing, can't you?

I can Barbarian, nevertheless, voter fraud has been verified in places like Chicago, 1960, and 1982 when is was estimated that 10% of the votes cast were illegal.

Well, goodness PR, I had no idea! Of course Illinois' problems with voter fraud are more than enough reason for Indiana to jump on the issue. What was it that one of the justices said??? Oh yes,


All that said, the inconvenience of having to obtain a separate photo ID is pretty small potatoes stacked against what some people have to go through in order to vote.

That's a tough one Barbie, especially considering that I grew up in the NJ school system. Let me see if I can figure this out!

I said:

That would be 1 thing!



Then I said:

That would be 1 thing!

And 1 + 1 = 2!
Yep, I think I got that figured out!

Can you tell the difference???


Now, I'll admit that you didn't say which "City" your extended family lives in. But, going on the fact that you live in NJ, I'm guessing North Jersey, when you say "the city" I would assume Newark, Trenton, or New York.

So, going on that assumption, can you tell the difference between the Peoples Republic of New Jersey, New York, and Indiana???

A flawed assumption is like a sewer; what you get out of it depends on what you put in into it.

Oh, My bad!

So, the in-laws are from, where, Jersey City???

Yea, I wouldn't want to admit to that either!

After all, Jersey City can't be differentiated from a Sewer!

BREAKING NEWS: In light of the Supreme Court ruling and the anticipation of similar legislation being passed in other states, Cook County, IL has announced that they will begin issuing photo death certificates...

Stupidity has its charms. Ignorance, alas, does not.

I lived in NYC, never drove, but had a drivers license. What happens if you go away and need to rent a car, or need to get on a plane, or pick up mail from the post office.

Not to mention it really comes in handy when you're getting a job, credit, etc. to have a photo id.

I don't know about other states, ok, so I know about many other states, and every one I have lived in has had a state issued photo ID that you can get in lieu of a drivers license if you can't or don't drive. The funny thing? You can register to vote at the same time you get your id. One stop shopping.

And that ID is free in some states, under $50 in most.

whine, whine, whine

just get the ID! my dear old mum in her 90's has no problem getting on the bus and getting to the DMV to get her photo ID

(although I discourage her as much as I can since she has voted a straight party line against me since I started voting)

Or open a new bank account, or buy beer if you look under 40, or claim certain prize winnings, or open a library card, or blockbuster card, or pretty much anything else.

How could one live without a government issued valid photo ID?

NY is one.

The Amish are happy without one.

Ok - how could one live happily in modernized society

They do a good job of living happily without the modern conveniences.