MOTHER JONES BY E-MAIL

«--Previous Post | Blog Index | Next Post--»

Voters Shut Out of Indiana Primary Will Have to Appeal to Higher Authority

I hope someone informs the Supreme Court's mostly Catholic majority that their recent decision to uphold Indiana's voter ID law prevented a convent full of elderly and disabled nuns from casting a vote in yesterday's Democratic primary. In its decision, the court insisted the state had a legitimate interest in depriving lots of people of their right to vote because it would deter phantom fraudsters, even though the state has never had a single documented case of voter impersonation fraud. Clearly, the justices hadn't anticipated the sisters, who don't drive and didn't have much need of ID in the convent. Now shut out of court and the voting booth, the Indiana brides of Christ will have to appeal to God for a remedy.

Comments

Well, now the the Bishop will have to drive them to the DMV and get them a ID..huh?
No ID.. No VOTE.>!!!

BIll

Posted by: BIll Nigh on 05/07/08 at 4:25 PM Respond

["In its decision, the court insisted the state had a legitimate interest in depriving lots of people of their right to vote..."]

Stephanie, would you mind posting a link to the court's decision, indicating where in the text they make such an insistance?

Not to say that I appreciate laws like this one, or the bogus 'Real ID' law, bucause nothing could be farther from the truth..., but I'm definitely interested to see how the Supreme Court worded a statement such as that.

Posted by: Say What? on 05/07/08 at 4:33 PM Respond

To "Say What?" above--

You can find the full text of the opinion here: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07slipopinion.html

The case is "Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd.," decided April 28. While Stephanie Mencimer above was paraphrasing/editorializing, the discussion of whether or not Indiana had legitimate state interests outweighing the harms caused by its voter registration law begins at Section II, page 7 of the opinion.

If you just want a quick recap of the court's reasoning, check out the syllabus at the beginning of the opinion.

Posted by: Zack on 05/07/08 at 7:08 PM Respond

To 'Zack':
Nice. Sweet. Well said.

To 'Say What?':
In your ear.

Posted by: BloggerRadio on 05/08/08 at 3:38 AM Respond

Zack is correct. Stephanie was venting because of frustration over yet another non-issue that has been elevated to legitimacy by law. Voter impersonation has never been even a minor problem. Voter suppression, however, has always been a long practiced art in the U.S.

As for the disenfranchised sisters, I suggest absentee balloting. You don't have to show ID in the mail. Of course, people of Nigh's ilk will want to "fix" that....

Posted by: Egalitare on 05/08/08 at 4:50 AM Respond

No Egalitaire, Nigh won't want to "fix" that. Guess which party had benefitted frmo alleged fraud in absentee voting? I'll give you a clue: the GOP has never wanted to touch that.

If the GOP really wanted to get everyone an ID, and didn't just want to disenfranchise likely Democrats, they would bring the IDs to the 80-year-olds without transportation, not just tell them to get a ride. By the way, ever wonder why people targeted for suppression by the Republicans rarely get the inclination to vote Republican? They keep voting for the party that tries to protect their right to vote. What a coincidence.

Posted by: Eric Ferguson on 05/08/08 at 2:03 PM Respond