Jeremy lassen ([info]jlassen) wrote,
@ 2008-05-07 08:41:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Voter suppression in Indiana
You may or may not have heard about the recent decision that validated Indiana's regressive voter suppression law that requires a picture ID to vote.

While there has been zero cases of in-person voter fraud in Indian, in its entire history, the Supreme court ruled that the law could stand, because it might possibly prevent some kind of fraud in the future, and there was no significant burden to getting a state picture ID.

voter fraud is imaginary, but the burdans indiana citizens face in gettign a picture ID is real. Here's just one real world story about people not able to vote because of the new law.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

(Post a new comment)


[info]marlowe1
2008-05-07 03:57 pm UTC (link)
I've never lived in a state where I didn't need a photo ID or some equivalent. I remember running around trying to get identification in the early 90s to vote in Minnesota because I didn't have a valid ID card (1994 - which was a shitty year for voting anyhow) as mine had just expired a month before.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]jlassen
2008-05-07 05:04 pm UTC (link)
Give me a list of the states you have lived in since you were 18, and I would wager money that you have NEVER lived in a state that requires you as a registered voter to provide a government issue picture ID at your polling place in order to vote.

As of right now, you don't need an ID to register to vote in Minesota. And unlike most states, MN allows you to register in person at the polling place, on the day of voting --- THAT is when you need an ID. http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/index.asp?page=204

And more importantly, In MN, and in most places in the country, you don't need to provide an ID at your polling place in order to vote, if you are already registered. The new Indiana law requires you to present a state issued ID at your polling place, even if you are already registered. Prior to the recent supreme court decision, the Supreme court had found that most Voter ID requirements represented a significant burden to certain segments of the population (segments, obviously enough, that often tend to vote for the democratic party, which is why the Repbulican party always supports these ID suppression laws), and constituted a poll tax of sorts, and illegally supressed voter turnout.

So, yes. This is a change. This isn't "the way its always been, in most places." Do some research.

In California, I have never, ever had to present an ID in order to vote. I'm registered, I show up, I tell them my name, I vote. I did not need to provide an ID to register, either.

CA is not unique in this. And just like in Indiana, there is not documented evidence of voter fraud taking place at polling places. Voter fraud takes place via absentee ballots, predominately, when it does happen. But mostly, it is a myth and republican talking point used to suppress voter turn out amongst the poor, elderly, and in minority communities.



(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]drangnon
2008-05-07 11:25 pm UTC (link)
unless a govt-issued picture ID can be acquired for free, it does indeed consist of a poll tax. how was that justified in the court decision?

it was held up by SCOTUS? I am pretty surprised. what is the court case? the AP article didn't cite it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…