Loading ...The Just Us League
I’ve been spending some time going over the recent lawsuit filed by the League of Women Voters of Indiana over the state’s Voter ID law. Although the law was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, the League argues it violates the State Constitution.
The League says Voter ID violates Article 2, Section 2 of the Indiana Constitution which reads in part…
A citizen of the United States who is at least eighteen (18) years of age and who has been a resident of a precinct thirty (30) days immediately preceding an election may vote in that precinct at the election.
By imposing a voter show ID, the League says the Legislature is adding an additional qualification to voting not listed in the Constitution and therefore it should be thrown out. I agree, the Voter ID law does violate the Constitution, but not in the way the League says it does.
The Constitution says to be qualified to vote you need to meet the age, citizenship and residency requirements. However, under Indiana law all your ID has to show is your photo, name (which does not have to be identical to the name in the book) an expiration date and be issued by the State of Indiana or the federal government. It does not have to show your age or your address. So if the government is going to ask you for your ID in order to vote, shouldn’t the ID have to show your age, residency and proof of citizenship?
States have always had the power to regulate the time, place and manner of their elections and as long as they don’t do it in a discriminatory manner, they are usually free to do as they please. So I argue the Voter ID law should be changed to meet the standards outlined in the Constitution.
And by the way, there is an interesting bit of irony in the League’s Voter ID lawsuit. The League cites the case of Board of Election Commissioners of City of Indianapolis v. Knight to make it’s point that any modification of voting not consistent with the Constitution is illegal. Well guess what, the point of the case was to deny women the right to vote.
Indiana had passed the Partial Suffrage Act in 1917 in order to give women the right to vote for non-constitutional created offices. However, a suit was filed to throw the law out, saying the constitution did not grant women the right to vote and the State did not have the power to give women the right to vote without amending the Constitution.
I think its rather odd that the League of Women Voters would try to advance the cause of voting by using a case that was used to deny women the right to vote.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Two thumbs up. You got it right. Our general assembly needs to do more work to be compliant with the Indiana Constitution. Granted, in the 1800s, what was a photo? So, over 100 yrs.later, either amend the Constitution or rescind the unconstitutional law.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:20 am
A further analysis posted this morning on ‘Justice & Fortitude’, at website timothyjmaguire.com
press blog tab
June 24th, 2008 at 8:45 am
So, can precinct workers begin to turn away potential voters because there is no proof that they are “citizens”?
It kinda reads like everybody is assuming that anybody who shows up to vote on election day is preforce a “citizen”.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:24 am
wow, this is completely backward. you only quoted 2(a). but 2(b) is extremely important:
(b) A citizen may not be disenfranchised under subsection (a), if the citizen is entitled to vote in a precinct under subsection (c) or federal law.
the voter ID law as implemented violates 2(b) by disenfranchising people who are entitled to vote.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:23 am
By Abdul’s logic, being registered to vote is also an additional requirement that is unconstitutional.
.
Let’s not be silly.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Let me say this a different way: the LOWV is wrong because this is not a “new requirement”–it is a method to verify one of the existing requirements. Namely that you are who you say that you are. Additionally Adbul is wrong because it does not follow that any verification of qualifications must verify ALL qualifications.
.
stAllio is also wrong, because not showing up with an ID does not disenfranchise the voter. They must cast a provisional ballot and then they must prove their identity to the Clerk after the election.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
joel, whether voters show ID at the polls or at the clerk’s office, they are still required to have the same ID. the effect is the same either way: voters who meet the requirements of 2(a) but don’t have the specific type of ID required by the statute are disenfranchised, a violation of 2(b).
June 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Art. 2, ss. 2(a) and (b) allow one to vote in a particular “precinct” based on residency
Art. 2, s. 14(c) grants to the GA the right to “provide for the registration of all persons entitled to vote”
So, the difference between the clerks’ offices and a particular precinct is of importance under the Indiana Constitution.
Also, the GA has the constitutional right to set the terms for “registration” of voters. Whether those ‘terms’ are limited only to having your name entered on the rolls or verification on election day will be for the Court to decide. Based upon the SCOTUS review, we have an indication of where this is headed.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
stAllio, Yes, ultimately the voter must prove that they are who they claim they are. As has been adequately pointed out, they also have be able to do so to cash a check, etc. The Indiana legislation provides for FREE photo IDs for those who do not have one. What the Supreme Court has found is that this is NOT a disenfranchisement issue. The State courts will not decide that the Supreme Court was wrong or that somehow the Indiana Constitution has a higher standard than Federal regulations.
.
But ultimately, the current lawsuit has nothing to do with disenfranchisement because that is exactly what was challenged in the Federal lawsuit. This is trying to dig around and find another excuse to defeat this entirely reasonable law in the court system rather than in the legislature.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
I find it interesting that the Democrat Party is opposed to the Voter ID Laws, and I know why.
True, no voter fraud case was ever proven in Marion County even though complaints had been filed after the elections. Coverups. The corrupt Carson machine was in motion for years. Traditionally in Marion County politics, the Ghetto Mafia was allowed to have voters driven to other precincts and vote on election day to run up the vote counts for candidates they had slated. The imposters were paid to vote in place of the legally registered voters who did not show up by the end of the day.
The Party chairmen and precinct captains always looked the other way because they only cared about winning. How do you think all of those lowlife elected officials got elected. They certainly aren’t our best or the brightest in the community. Say it isn’t so!
June 24th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Reading ALL of section 2 it’s strongly implied that the state has an interest in knowing who people are, where they live, and how old they are. Sounds like some sort of…ID.
The LOWV is a far-left group parading as non-partisan, except they are wildly pro-abortion, pro-immigration, etc. They are not sonme disintersted neutral party.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Angry Democrat:
You are exactly right!!!!
That is why the Carson machine candidates are losing up until the ‘last push’. That’s when they have people simply vote for those who did not vote earlier. The workers in the precints actually cast the votes. There is no republican opposition in the Center Township precincts because that’s prearranged by David Brooks. So the democrats have complete control over the entire voting process throughout center township on voting day.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
The Jocelyn/Darla SockPuppetry Show is certainly showing off today with their hoary tales of chicanery never presented with evidence. They’ve peddled those fables for years but are laughed at so nowadays with the Internet they simply make up fake names and repeat the same discredited junk. Oh well…
They can’t ever win elections so they simply fabricate skullduggery to explain-away their continued losses. Weak!
June 27th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
This will not stop until the feds or the republican party fully staff center township precincts with strong poll workers, not little old ladies, but lawyers, off-duty police officers, etc. who don’t take any ’shit’ from the Carson machine workers.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
As “Short Stop” knows full well, such tactics worked well for a while by Senator Bilbo, Bull Conner, George Wallace, etc in suppressing Black voters. Why does she want it in the 21st Century in Center Township?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I’m not happy having Burton as my rep, to put it mildly. However, I don’t believe it was “machine politics” that reelected him as much as McGoff had too little $ and Operation Chaos. If I’m wrong, please advise. I hear enough smoke about the Center Township “political machine”, that I’m believing there’s fire given the lack of support for Carson’s opposition candidates. If so, what’s the historical remedy of defeating this? Are there pertinent examples applicable from Tamany(sp?) Hall, Huey Long, or maybe more local instances? Are we simply dealing with a more ill-informed electorate? Or, they’re perfectly informed and they just believe in Mr. Carson?
June 28th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Wrong again,The dumpster diver Wilson Allen 46201 has return.
He seems to be obsessed with Darla and Jocelyn. They are not the ones who have stolen votes from other candidates. Wilson should know, since you were one of the flunkies
who followed Carson blindly. Reason we have voter ID, Yes we do need it on election and at party slating conventions. Why don’t you prove that it does not happen?
Wilson cleanup up your own backyard and your house before you begin your petty attacks against anti Carson opponents.
June 28th, 2008 at 2:56 am
Wilson46201/artfuggins
No! not again
June 28th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Who is it that always says:
“Good citizens talk about issues and policies.
Good voters talk about candidates.
Shadowy gossips talk about me.”
Let’s revise that:
“Good citizens talk about issues and policies.
Good voters talk about candidates.
Shadowy gossips talk about Darla and Jocelyn.”
Hint: http://www.indianabarrister.com/archives/2008/02/news_from_around_town-2.html