Voter ID Reaches the Supreme Court

Why is it a big deal for voters to have to prove that they are who they say they are-- especially with 12-20 million illegal aliens now living in the U. S.? Since the federal government is so far unwilling to protect our borders, voter ID seems to me like a basic, sensible way for the states to protect the integrity of their elections.

by Peter Gemma

Question: What issue would bring together such powerful special interest groups such as the ACLU, the NAACP, Common Cause, the American Jewish Committee, the National Black, Asian, and Latino Law Student Associations and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund?

Answer: The defense of the status quo in America's inefficient and inaccurate election system— which delivers raw political power to America's underclass of illegal aliens.

Today, Wednesday January 9, the U.S. Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in the Indiana Democratic Party v. Todd Rokita and William Crawford v. Marion County Election Board cases. [Tougher voter ID laws fuel debate, USATODAY.com, December 19, 2007] The debate centers on the state of Indiana's attempts to protect its elections by requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

Laws protecting voters against fraud are fast being put in place— 26 states have some sort of Election Day proof of identity conditions and at least eight states have established tough voter ID laws in the last five years. However, this common sense proof of identity (you and I do so every time we cash a check or board an airplane) is being challenged by an army of special interest groups.

In the last two years, photo ID laws in Indiana, Georgia, and Arizona have been upheld in lower courts, while a Missouri law was blocked from taking effect. [Supreme Court to hear voter ID case, By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times, September 26, 2007]. By agreeing to hear an appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that it wanted this dispute resolved before voters go to the polls this November.

The photo ID issue has united and incited into action many of those who have yet to get over the 2000 Bush-versus-Gore election controversy. "Many accused the Supreme Court of partisanship in deciding Bush v. Gore, and some voting rights advocates fear that the court could make things worse," warned Loyola Law School professor Richard L. Hasen, [A Voting Test for the High Court , Washington Post, September 19, 2007]. Hasen also noted, "there's more than a little bit of irony in going to the Supreme Court and asking them to rise above partisan politics in election cases." [Supreme Court to weigh in on voter ID laws , by Mark Sherman, USA Today, December 30, 2007}

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the first Muslim to serve in Congress and part of the gang of usual suspects filing Amici Briefs opposing Indiana, alleges "the photo identification requirement would present barriers to voting.". Signing onto Mr. Ellison's brief was the entire Congressional Black Caucus as well as Senator Barack Obama, who demands...Keep reading>>>