Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Supreme Court Grants Cert In Voter ID Case

The Indiana Democratic Party gets its wish. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an appeal the party has taken from a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the constitutionality of Indiana's Voter ID suit. Quoting from the Indiana Law Blog, the writ of cert reads as follows:

07-21 ) CRAWFORD, WILLIAM, ET AL. V. MARION CTY. ELECTION BD., ET AL. )
07-25 ) IN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL. V. ROKITA, IN SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The brief of petitioners is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Monday, November 5, 2007. The brief of respondents is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Monday, December 3, 2007. A reply brief, if any, is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, December 28, 2007. Briefs of amici curiae are to be filed with the Clerk and served upon counsel for the parties on or before 2 p.m., 7 days after the brief for the party supported is filed, or if in support of neither party, within 7 days after the petitioners’ brief is filed.

Although the Indiana Attorney General argued against the granting of cert in these cases, I have to believe he is relatively confident of receiving a receptive ear from at least five of the Supreme Court Justices. Today's order includes an hour for oral argument. This should be interesting. Likely question from Scalia: So why can't this Crawford guy produce a photo ID?

Would Ken Falk of the ACLU of Indiana please explain to the people of Indiana why he and his organization didn't give a damn when Marion Co. Clerk Beth White disenfranchised thousands of voters during this year's May primary by failing to open up precincts until late in the afternoon, or in the case of some precincts, not at all? It just strikes me that the ACLU opens itself up to partisan attacks when it devotes so much of its resources to battling the alleged problem with Voter ID--a case where they can't identify one single voter to the court who had been disenfranchised because of the law--and then turns its back on the thousands of voters who couldn't cast a vote because of Beth White's utter incompetence in carrying out her statutory duty to put on elections in Marion County. Please, Ken Falk, say it ain't so. Do you only care about pursuing the Democrats' political agenda, not securing the rights of individuals?

41 comments:

Sir Hailstone said...

Crossing fingers for a favorable result in favor of Voter ID.

You need drivers license to drive, and picture ID to enter federal installations, fly on an airplane, cash a check (most of the time), among many other things.

Voter ID is not an undue burden or disenfranchisement unless you're committing voter fraud. If you want to scream disenfranchisement how about those polling precincts that NEVER opened during the May primary?

Sir Hailstone said...

"So why can't this Crawford guy produce a photo ID?"

If he can't produce a photo ID, how did he manage to get to Washington, DC and enter the SCOTUS building?

Anonymous said...

Why aren't white voters complaining about the voter ID requirement?

Anonymous said...

Has anyone ever lost their drivers license? It aint easy getting a new one. And if you lose it on November 4th good luck getting a new one in time to vote especially if you can't locate a required document from the "acceptable primary idenentity group list" needed to obtain one from the BMV.

"Voter ID is not an undue burden or disenfranchisement unless you're committing voter fraud"

I am praying you lose your ID November 4th butt wipe. Ooooh we need this law because ......

Anonymous said...

Likely question from Justice Souter: Are you telling me Mr. Rokita that an American citizen, born in the United States in a rural area, at home, with a midwife, who never received a birth certificate. This American citizen would be denied the right to vote in Indiana because they didn't have a certified birth certificate to get a state issued photo ID? You would disenfranchise native born Americans in search of fraud you didn't prove?

Jason said...

I'm sure a midwife could direct you to the health department to get a birth certificate.

Asking about what happens if you lose your license is like asking what happens if someone oversleeps. So what do I do if I work nights and I wake up at 7 in the evening? What are THEY going to do for ME?

Wilson46201 said...

Don't try to act like Hoosier hicks: this is a national project to disenfranchise voters instigated in a number of states. Somehow these laws only got passed in states with GOP control. Indiana merely has the most restrictive of these new laws. The Indiana GOP outdid the Southern states!

Sir Hailstone said...

"I am praying you lose your ID November 4th butt wipe."

I have two forms - if one doesn't work I can use another.

With any luck Beth White will forget to open your polling place. PHBBT!

Sir Hailstone said...

"born in the United States in a rural area, at home, with a midwife, who never received a birth certificate."

If that occurred the midwife committed a crime. The midwife must file for a birth certificate in the county in which the birth occurs. By federal law, this also generates the child's social security number.

Anonymous said...

The worst part is that the Supreme court even decided to take this nonsense case. Just say no to stupidity and obvious attempts at fraud by not having to produce identification.

Joel Harris said...

Actually it is better that they take the case. If they take it and find in favor of our law then it will allow other states to pass similar rational laws to prevent fraud and not risk frivolous lawsuits on it.

Does anyone actually know of someone who doesn't have a picture ID?

As I recall, if you lost your drivers license, you could take a birth certificate, and some things like a utility bill and get a free picture ID from the BMV. No, it wouldn't be a drivers license and you would still have to jump through those hoops, but you would have adequate ID for voting.

Anonymous said...

If you do not have a photo ID, you can still file a provincial ballot. You are given (I believe) 30 days to provide an ID.

Anonymous said...

You guys crack me up!!! Where is this voter fraud that everyone is freakin out about? Oh yeah when Bush stole the election.

Sir Hailstone said...

"provincial ballot"

Nit: It's a Provisional ballot, eh. We're not in Canada, eh.

"Oh yeah when Bush stole the election."

*yawn* Just because old snowbirds from New York couldn't figure out how to vote correctly doesn't mean squat. Just because dead voters didn't turn out in 2000 and 2004 to get Algore or Jon Carry elected you're all upset. Waah waah waah call a waaahbulance.

Anonymous said...

Again I say, where's the "voter fraud" everyone is freakin out about.

THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!! *yawn*

How about this, how about everyone gets a scannable voter chip implanted in their butt cheeks. This way we can moon our way to the voting booth.

Anonymous said...

I hope they ask why the BMV employee named in the court documents as not being able to obtain an ID, and had a valid driver's license, was not charged with perjury...or held in contempt of court?

Anonymous said...

"Just because old snowbirds from New York couldn't figure out how to vote correctly doesn't mean squat. Just because dead voters didn't turn out in 2000 and 2004 to get Algore or Jon Carry elected you're all upset."

Has nothing to do with the justificaton for the voter ID law.

Anonymous said...

11:09 we need this law to stop the voter fraud by the Democrats in Indianapolis. Obviously you have never been at a Center Twp polling place on election day and seen ARMED constable (and candidate) Tony Duncan illegally enter the polling chute with Julia Carson who was also running for office!

Anonymous said...

"we need this law to stop the voter fraud by the Democrats in Indianapolis"

OOOHHHHH I see it's a partian issue. Those nasty Democrats.

Anonymous said...

...partisan issue.

Anonymous said...

State Representative William "Bill" Crawford, chairman of the Indiana House Ways and Means Committee can't get an ID? He is one of the plaintiffs. The Democrats could not find anyone else to file a lawsuit.

Typical Republican bashing.

Anonymous said...

For the defenders of no ID to vote-you insult the Democrats as being too dumb to get an ID-

mw said...

Sir Hailstone......It does not matter what you say....any demcrat in there right mind won't agree with you....I do, but they won't........Wilson and other democrats want to whine.......let them whine......But that is just the way they are.....it is sad

Jason said...

I'm trying to figure out why this is a partisan issue? I'm sure if you go back far enough you'll find a lot of voter fraud on both sides of the aisle. Seeing as how we're in a major city I would venture to say most of it is on the left, but I'm sure nationwide it's a little more even. Nevertheless, why are the Democrats trying to make this a party issue? I don't understand that. Most rural people are conservative anyway, they would have more trouble driving an hour to the BMV than any poor person in the city would.

Anonymous said...

Laugh! The Democrats lie and say there was no fraud before voter ID, when they would bring buses from the old folks home and bums promised a gift from "500" if they voted a ticket...and all they had to do was say the name given them from the Democrat's watcher poll list.

Tracking the offender is about impossible WITHOUT voter ID...think about it! How can you proved Susie Baglady voted as Tax & Spend Democrat when you have no ID on who Susie Baglady really is????????

"Corruption is as corruption does!" --The Democrat Machine

Anonymous said...

3:00 Attention! The Democrat Party, including the disgusting William Crawford, (D) Indianapolis, filed the suit! The Voter ID law stopped their gig dead.

Anonymous said...

From the decision: "Regarding the identity of individuals “associated with the Democratic Party” who
would allegedly be injured by the implementation of the Voter ID Law, the Democrats
initially identified nine citizens: ...Constance Andrews...Constance Andrews is an employee of the Bureau of Motor Vehicles who
frequently works at the polls on election day as a Judge for the Democratic Party...Although Ms. Andrews declared in response to the Democrats’
postcard survey that she did not have a driver’s license or any other government-issued
photo identification, at her deposition she testified that she **did indeed have a valid
driver’s license.** When asked why she responded as she did to the survey, she said “I may
have made a mistake there.”

It was not a mistake, it was a lie, like "Bart Lies!"

Anonymous said...

6:57 I wonder why the Postal Inspector did not charge her with mail fraud?

Anonymous said...

The tenor and content of the comments on this thread confirm the suspicions of many of us who have opposed this law that those who supported it have animus towards African-Americans, recent immigrants, the poor and elderly, and that the real purpose of the law all along is to deter poor folks who do not drive and who don't have a driver's license from voting. Your comments betray your biases. Why can't you discuss the pros and cons of this law calmly and rationally without revealing your antipathy towards a certain segment of the population. Shame on you.

Advance Indiana said...

Anon 9:17, this has absolutely nothing to do with the poor and the elderly or minorities. It is absolutely insulting to the intelligence of rational people that these lame excuses are thrown up by people who profess to care for the little guy. If any of these people you claim to speak for desire to vote, they will be able to vote. Stop the disinformation right now. There are provisions in the law for casting provisional ballots. I am so sick and tired of the phony arguments by the Democratic Party and the ACLU. Produce the evidence people are being deprived of the right to vote. Damn it, just produce it. You can't without having witnesses commit perjury. Just admit what every sensible person has already concluded.

ProCynic said...

Note to Wilson and Anon 2:14: You don't believe there's vote fraud? Check out East Chicago. Here's a hint: Pabey v. Pastrick, decided in August 2004 by the Indiana Supreme Court, upheld a finding of vote fraud committed by supporters of then-Mayor Robert Pastrick, who is also a member of the Indiana State and National Democratic Central Committees. Threw out the election and ordered a special election, which was won by the chellenger, George Pabey.

Do we even need to mention East St. Louis (which even involved a murder), Milwaukee and Seattle (which both had more votes cast than registered voters)?

Advance Indiana said...

ProCynic, of course, these so-called supporters of the downtrodden will say Pastrick's fraud was all with absentee balloting. They know full well that absentee ballot prosecution is what you wind up with because there is documentary proof of the fraud. You can't find the person who came in to the polling place, impersonated another voter, cast a vote and then disappeared. Here's the factual findings of criminal wrongdoing. If these folks will go to these lengths to commit fraud, they certainly won't stop at impersonating voters.

a) a predatory pattern exercised by Pastrick supporters of inducing voters that were first-time voters or otherwise less informed or lacking in knowledge of the voting process, the infirm, the poor, and those with limited skills in the English language, to engage in absentee voting;
b) the numerous actions of Pastrick supporters of providing compensation and/or creating the expectation of compensation to induce voters to cast their ballot via the absentee process. Those actions primarily–but not exclusively–involved the payment of money to voters to be present outside the polls on Election Day. The extensive evidence presented established that, at the least thirty-nine separate individuals . . . fell within the ambit of those activities that engaged cash incentives to encourage absentee voting;

c) the actions of various Pastrick supporters who directed applicants for absentee ballots to contact that Pastrick supporter when the applicant received his or her absent[ee] ballot and, once called, to proceed to their home and, though not authorized by law to do so, "assist" the voter in completing the ballot;

d) the use of vacant lots or former residences of voters on applications for absentee ballots2;

e) the possession of unmarked absentee ballots by Pastrick supporters and the delivery of those ballots to absentee voters;

f) the possession of completed and signed ballots by Pastrick supporters who were not authorized by law to have such possession;

g) the routine completion of substantive portions of absentee ballot applications by Pastrick supporters to which applicants simply affixed their signature;

h) the routine use of false representations–usually the indication that the applicant "expected" to be absent from Lake County on May 6, 2003–by those Pastrick supporters who filled out the substantive portions of applications and by votes solicited by Pastrick supporters to vote absentee to complete absentee ballot applications;

i) votes cast by employees of the City of East Chicago who simply did not reside in East Chicago; and

j) a zealotry to promote absentee voting that was motivated by the personal financial interests of Pastrick supporters and, in particular, city employees.

Id. at 9-11 (emphasis supplied in Judgment) (footnote added).

[T]he series of deliberate actions set forth in [the above items (a) through (j)] implicate various state laws concerning absentee ballots [therein detailing various election and criminal laws implicated, including various violations constituting class D felonies].

Advance Indiana said...

By the way, the Indiana Democratic Party idolized Pastrick. He was like a rock star to them. Evan Bayh's top political people, including Bill Moreau, tripped over themselves to kiss Pastrick's ass. How many recent Democratic Party chairmen and political leaders up in da Region have gone to jail in recent years for this crap? The ACLU should be ashamed for allowing itself to become a tool for the Democratic Party and its long history of subverting the electoral process in Indiana.

Anonymous said...

Amen. I suppose that ends this thread.

Anonymous said...

Gary, you are absolutely correct about the long trail of Democratic oepratives, who beat a path to the door of the Pastrick family for decades. Including Bill Moreau, Joe Hogsett, Evan Bayh, Ann Delaney, and more. I personally witnessed it. It was disgusting. It was all about money, though--not voting power.

Although I have ltitle hope the cert will ultimately be successful, I am hopeful about the ultimate outcome of Voter ID nonsense. In the body of the state's case, they admitted there were no credible cases of voter polling place fraud. Both parties stipulated that there had been certifiable fraud among absentee ballots over many years.

I'd favor a Voter ID law that allowed multiple ID forms to be used. A state-issued ID is simply oppressive, if it's the only form allowed. That fact really cannot be refuted.

Not that this Supreme Court would ever come to that conclusion. For a broader view of the pre-Allito/Roberts court and its manipulative deliberations, please refer to Jeffrey Toobin's new book, "The Nine." The Supreme Court, sadly now including former Justice O'Connor, blatantly politicizes more cases than we'd believe.

Trolling for "justice." It's unappetizing, at best.

Lovers of the Constitution, unite!

Anonymous said...

What percentage of voters with felonies do you suppose are casting ballots in Marion County, specifically Center Township?

It is also interesting to note that all the Pea Shake houses are closed on election day so that the "employees" of the Center Township illegal illegal numbers racket can work to "get out the vote".

Anonymous said...

It never ends, does it, 7:30?

The urban legend about Center voting continues.

If you have proof, produce it! Or shut the hell up already. Your Secretary of State trolled for those stories, and he couldn't find any. That didn't stop him from pandering to the wingnuts and getting a bill through the legislature. Not much political courage there.

If ya lighten up on the exact document required to vote, you'd have me and a bunch of other folks with ya. But this state-issued ID thing...it is just too oppressive.

Sir Hailstone said...

"A state-issued ID is simply oppressive"

If its so oppressive why does everyone have one?

gt said...

There are provisions in the law for casting provisional ballots. I am so sick and tired of the phony arguments by the Democratic Party and the ACLU. Produce the evidence people are being deprived of the right to vote. Damn it, just produce it. You can't without having witnesses commit perjury.... a case where they can't identify one single voter to the court who had been disenfranchised because of the law--

My name is Robbin Stewart. I am one of the people who has been disenfranchised by this unconstitutional policy. My provisional vote was cast and not counted. Under the Indiana Constitution, I have a right to have my vote counted. More info at joellpalmer.blogspot.com or gtbear at gmail. I'm not trying to vote twice. I'm trying to vote once. They know it's me - I've been voting there for years. My signature matches the signature they have on file. The only fraud involved is their fraud in not counting my vote.

Anonymous said...

If its so oppressive why does everyone have one?

I agree with you Mike, and I anxiously await the next logical step when we're all required to carry it and show it on request. I never understood why everyone was so against national ID cards.

Anonymous said...

My 80 year old mother managed to get herself a state I.D. because she can't drive. You Dems always try to turn the argument backwards. The only insulting of minorities are from you Democrats who use them as an argument to support no voter identification. You cite excuses that translates into using them for your agenda and they being too dumb to see it.