Supreme court makes vote fraud more difficult
TheThe opposition to voter ID cannot have been in good faith. Anyone can get a valid ID, even my mother who is living in a nursing home. It will inhibit the dead vote in some jurisdictions. It will also inhibit the cross border voting that takes place. ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld 's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'"said in an opinion that was joined by and . Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Justices, and also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"
The NY Times reports that Sen. Chuck Schumer had his typical understated reaction to the ruling. “This decision is a body blow to what America stands for — equal access to the polls.” At least he refrained from his usual dagger to the heart metaphor.