Did you see that the Court refused to block Arizona's voter ID law?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060912/ap_on_re_us/voter_identification

Previously the court had denied an injunction to stop it, but hadn't ruled on the merits. Now it is official.

I think this is just common sense, that if federal law requires people to be citizens, states can require proof of that. However, it is a major case, all the same.

What do you think?

"A federal judge on Monday refused to block a law that requires Arizona voters to present identification before casting a ballot.

ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver's order came a day before Tuesday's primary, the first statewide election for which voters will be required to show identification. The law has already been used in some municipal elections.

The 2004 law requires that voters at polling places produce government-issued picture ID or two pieces of other non-photo identification specified by the law. It also requires proof of citizenship when registering to vote."

Actually, I guess what was ruled on before was the temporary restraining order, and this is the preliminary injunction.

Cora, when ID wasn't so commonly needed for health care and other purposes, to write a check, or use a credit card, or get on a plane, it was easier to consider this a burden. My 97 year old Grandmother had fistfuls of ID when she died. I think it is a very minimal burden, as did the Court, apparently.

Answer 1

A sensible idea.

Answer 2

Several states have attempted to enact similar laws over the years, with varying results.

The problem is, these laws have in the past been shown to have a massive and significant effect on preventing citizens from voting, primarily racial minorities. That runs afoul of the 14th and 15th Amendment protections against racial discrimination in voting.

Also, where the ID costs money to obtain, that has already been ruled an illegal poll tax under the 24th Amendment. In other words, it is illegal to make someone pay money to be allowed to vote. So, if the ID costs money, then the law is invalid whether it ends up being racially discriminatory or not. The obvious solution, which some states are currently trying, is to make the IDs free.

Whether that will work, and whether that addresses the racial concerns, still remains to be seen.

Answer 3

SCOTUS is the perfect authority on what's or isn't constitutional. besides the undeniable fact that, that doesnt propose they're infalable. they can and do revisit previous judgements (in spite of the reality that frequently do not)

Answer 4

Much ado about nothing--- I live in AZ. People have to show ID for all sorts of things, showing ID to vote is not a big deal. If you can't do that one simple thing, sorry you don't get to vote. Its really easy -- in fact, you can use your voter ID card or any number of things to proove your ID.

One simple way to deal with the whol thing is to vote by mail.

All this talk of voter disenfranchisement is BS....

Answer 5

Round up all the illegal aliens and ship them home. Let's enforce our laws, and while we are at it, we should change the "Birth Right" law that states that children born in this country are automatically citizens. If your parents are illegal, then so are you!!!!

Answer 6

hell yeah it is about time for common sense to be used. Looks like the damnocrats are in trouble this year!!!