Supreme Court Decision on Voter IDs Denounced from All Sides, Praised By Rush Limbaugh

Election Experts: Today's Supreme Court Ruling Will Add to Long List of
Hurdles Already Facing American Voters

Call for New Standards to Ensure Fair and Secure Elections

WASHINGTON, DC - Election experts fear that today's ruling in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board will not only prompt state election officials to enact similarly restrictive ID laws, but will also lay the foundation for them to impose other restrictions that unnecessarily burden voting. These restrictions, including laws targeting civic groups that help register voters and improper implementation of federal laws intended to protect voters from being wrongly purged from voter lists, could exacerbate difficulties voters already face complying with existing voting laws.

"Today's decision is disappointing because it upholds a new hurdle for voters unsupported by any evidence of voter impersonation in Indiana." said Bob Brandon, Co-founder and President, Fair Elections Legal Network. "With more states imposing their own rules, it's clear we need sensible reform to bring fair standards to all eligible voters."

"At a time of increased participation in our election system, we need to move toward lifting burdens on voters and creating a streamlined, fair system. The Court's decision is an unfortunate step backward for our nation, said John Bonifaz, Legal Director for Voter Action. "We need broad reform to make the system easier for all eligible voters to register, remain registered, and vote."

The Court's ruling means that large numbers of registered voters, many of whom have been voting for most of their lives, including senior, student, rural, disabled, minority and low income voters may not be able to cast a ballot in next week's primary or in the November elections. While states have the authority to regulate the administration of elections, they must do so in a way that is uniform, fair and promotes, instead of deters, voter participation. This case demonstrates that fair standards are necessary to ensure full participation in our democracy."

Bob Brandon is Co-founder and President of the Fair Elections Legal Network with more than 25 years of public policy, legislative, media and campaign experience at the federal, state and local levels. Fair Elections Legal Network is a national, nonpartisan network of election lawyers who work year round, well in advance of Election Day, to remove legal and administrative barriers to voter participation by traditionally under participating constituencies. It has over 180 lawyers in 29 states representing local organizations challenging restrictive laws and rules by working informally with state and local election officials or, with the help of its legal staff, initiating more proceedings.

John Bonifaz is a MacArthur Fellowship award winner and the Legal Director of Voter Action, a national non-profit organization at the forefront of the election integrity movement in the United States. He is also the founder of the National Voting Rights Institute and served as its executive director from 1994-2004, and its general counsel from 2004-2006.Through legal advocacy, research, and public education, Voter Action works to protect open and transparent election processes in which US elections at the federal, state, and local levels are accessible and verifiable.

________________

As the great voting rights advocate, Rush Limbaugh, trumpeted at the beginning of his radio show this morning, today's 6 to3 Supreme Court ruling allowing new, modern restrictions regarding which citizens may or may not cast a vote at an American polling place on Election Day, is "a huge, huge, huge move forward to undercut Democrat efforts to commit voter fraud this fall."
Fortunately, instead of coming in June, as expected, this decision on an Indiana Photo ID restriction case, comes just in time to prevent massive voter fraud at the polls in Indiana's Democratic Primary two weeks from now, where millions of fraudulent Democratic voters were almost certainly plotting to try and show up to vote on electronic voting systems on which it's impossible to prove one way or another whether they did or didn't vote the way the machines will tell us they did. With voting systems like those in use across the Hoosier State, and elsewhere around the country, it's all the more reason to ensure those Democrats can't show up and commit the fraud they were probably planning to on May 6th!
Clearly, today's SCOTUS decision is a good start, but it hardly goes far enough to ensure the right American voices are heard, as our founders intended! 14th Amendment, 14th Shmamendment! Don't you Democrats understand the Constitution is a living document, meant to be interpreted liberally?!
If we hope to ensure that only the right people vote, and not the wrong, fraudulent Americans, it's time to put our laws where our mouths are! So here are a few ideas, for some even more good polling place laws to help discourage voter fraud...
FULL STORY: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5932

_____________________

Hoyer Statement on ‘Unfortunate’
Supreme Court Decision on Voter ID
WASHINGTON, DC – House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD) released the following statement today after the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Indiana’s voter identification law:

“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is extremely unfortunate, and in my view, counter-productive. Restrictive voter identification laws result in registered voters being denied their right to vote, which is simply unacceptable. These laws place an undue burden on voters, and suppress the turnout of minority and elderly Americans. Additionally, there has been no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana that would necessitate such a law.

“Voting is the most fundamental right held by Americans. We must do all we can to ensure that every American citizen is able to make their voice heard in our democracy through the voting booth.”

______________________

Student Association for Voter Empowerment
Press Release

YOUNG VOTERS CONDEMN SUPREME COURT DECISION ON VOTER ID LAW

Contact: Matthew Segal, SAVE Executive Director, 847-502-5012,
matthew.segal@savevoting.org.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 28, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a particularly
discriminating election law today; the case, appealed in the seventh
circuit court, requires registered voters in the state of Indiana to
provide a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.

Although the implications of mandating a photo ID might seem benign given
their ubiquitous use in airports, government agencies and banks, there are
tens of thousands of indigent, non-driving, non-traveling, and non-banking
Americans-both young and old-who do not possess such documentation.
Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan estimates that in her state
alone, some 200,000 eligible voters do not possess driver's licenses or
any similar forms of photo identification.

Justice John Paul Steven's remarks were troubling: "[The law] is amply
justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and
reliability of the electoral process,'" he said.

Yet there is little integrity in the precedent it sets for student voters.
In a hearing held by the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE)
this past July, several college students testified about the inability to
prove domicile in their college districts merely because their photo ID
was from a different part of the state or another state entirely. Photo ID
laws can therefore prevent out-of-state college students from registering
in the district where they attend school. The substitutions for a photo ID
are also not easily obtainable because colleges and universities generally
pay utility and other bills for students that live in dormitories.

Unless students are to change their out-of state drivers licenses or
residency entirely, many young voters will be forced to vote absentee or
provisionally, lowering voter efficacy and making the registration process
more bureaucratic, time-consuming, and cumbersome. Changing state
residency can also create complications for out-of-state students on
certain scholarship guidelines or financial aid contracts.

"I am deeply disturbed by the prospect that voter ID laws are not
considered an access barrier," said Matthew Segal, the executive director
of SAVE. "I know from hundreds of conversations, testimony at our
hearing, and evidence on the ground that voter ID laws have deterred
out-of-state residents from voting where they attend school nine months
of the year. In light of fantastic youth turnout in both presidential
primaries, I am skeptical of our ability to maintain momentum as we move
forward with this disproportionately discriminatory law."

SAVE is a non-partisan, non-profit organization on over 25 college
campuses, founded and run by students, with a mission to increase youth
voter turnout by removing access barriers and promoting stronger civic
education. To learn more, please visit www.savevoting.org.

____________________

Congressman Ellison and Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Kilpatrick on Supreme Court Voter Id Case

“…disenfranchises the poor, the elderly and minority communities”

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Minneapolis) and Chairwoman Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Detroit) voice their profound opposition to today’s Supreme Court decision allowing states to require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, essentially validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

“I am deeply disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision. While the requirement to have photo ids seems harmless, they are in fact the modern day poll tax,” said Ellison. “The ruling effectively disenfranchises thousands of voters from our most vulnerable communities – the poor, elderly and minority communities.”

Congressman Ellison, along with all 42 Members of the Congressional Black Caucus, filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the case striking down an Indiana photo id requirement as an unconstitutional poll tax.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision to endorse a burdensome voter id practice which blatantly divorces immigrants, the economically disadvantaged and seniors from the electoral process is unconstitutional and un-American,” remarked Congresswoman Carolyn C. Kilpatrick (D-MI), Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus. “During this historic season, when either an African American male or a woman will serve as the Democratic nominee for the United States Presidency, the highest court of the law has chosen regressive voter suppression tactics instead of stimulating broad voter participation for all Americans.”

“Advocates of voter id verification seek to minimize the photo id requirement by citing the need to do so when purchasing fishing and hunting licenses, or obtaining a drivers license. But none of those actions are as fundamental as voting, which is guaranteed in the Constitution. It is first found in the 15th Amendment and then expressly underscored without any additional requirement in the 24th Amendment,” Ellison said.

The Department of Justice claimed that photo requirements in federal elections have no discriminatory impact on minorities, senior citizens or young voters.

The facts speak otherwise. According to a June 2005 University of Wisconsin study:

· An estimated 23% of people aged 65 and over did not have a valid photo id;

· Less than half of Milwaukee County’s African American and Hispanic adults did not have valid driver’s license or photo identification compared to 85% of their White counterparts who did.

· For young minority adults, aged 18-24, only 26% of African American youth and 34% of Hispanic youth had a valid driver’s license compared to 71% of their White counterparts who did.

“In America, our right to vote is a sacred right, and a moral obligation,” Ellison stated. “We must do everything that encourages, fosters and facilitates everyone’s ability to exercise that right. It is my sincere hope that states, like Minnesota who lead the nation in voter turnout, do not view this flawed ruling as reason to enact disenfranchising laws,” Ellison said

Ellison went on to note that six Justices did recognize that Indiana’s law places a heavier burden on some eligible citizens, particularly elderly and low-income persons who could be blocked from voting without the proper documentation. “They should keep in mind that the Court left open the possibility of future lawsuits against restrictive ID laws that prevent people from voting,” Ellison stated.

______________________