Friday, October 20, 2006

Supreme Court Allows Voter I.D.

For now (via Rick Hasan). They also don't like the switcheroos of procedures, laws, etc. too close to voting. Both of these sentiments make sense.

The Supreme Court said: "Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised....Countering the State's compelling interest in preventing voter fraud is the plaintiffs' strong interest in exercising the 'fundamental political right' to vote. Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330, 336 (1972) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the likely effects of Proposition 200 are much debated, the possibility that qualified voters might be turned away from the polls would caution any district judge to give careful consideration to the plaintiffs' challenges."

This also signals more involvement by the Supreme Court in voting matters and the electoral process. Depending upon the side you're on, that could be a good or bad thing.

I'm all for anything that will eliminate voter fraud. Well, not anything. I wouldn't want the government to have finger prints of everyone, that's for sure. But a Driver's License seems like such a small thing to help prevent dead people from voting and double votes. Also, I wouldn't want the election swung by 30 million illegal immigrants.

Tips: Instapundit, Volokh Conspiracy has more

No comments: