Wednesday, January 09, 2008

US Supreme Court will rule on voter ID

Well, this is one baby step for sheeplekind if the Supreme Court rules against this ridiculous law. It sure doesn't make any sense to require a drivers license or an official ID to be able to vote, but that was one of the things that Bu$hco was implementing to cast out votes in previous elections. I hope this will be a precedent toward some legal action on the use of voting machines. It looks to me that there was tampering with the vote in the New Hampshire primaries, but the MSM is going out of their way to explain why the polls were wrong. A bitter pill to swallow after seeing seven years of this country being manipulated, lied to, robbed, shamed, and misled by a cabal of corporate oriented Neocons

US Supreme Court to Rule on Voter Rights
By Andrew Baroch
09 January 2008

An American citizen's right to vote is enshrined in the Constitution, but there have been efforts to thwart that right. Until the Supreme Court declared poll taxes and literacy tests unconstitutional, they once prevented many people from voting, especially those who were poor or minority citizens.

Today the justices heard arguments about a state law that requires individuals to present a specific type of identification to be able to vote. VOA's Andrew Baroch reports, the case has nationwide repercussions, since the high court is expected to rule several months before the 2008 U.S. Presidential election.

The United States Supreme Court takes up voter ID law

At issue is a law enacted three years ago by the Indiana legislature that many opponents consider restricts voters' rights. Under the law, a voter has to present a government-issued photo identification card at a polling place (such as a driver's license or a passport) to be eligible to cast a ballot. Without it, the voter is given a provisional ballot, which will not be counted unless he or she returns with acceptable proof of identity. Other states' polling places accept documents of identification like utility bills or voters' sworn affidavits. But nearly 30 state legislatures are considering statutes like Indiana's, so the Court's ruling on this case will have a nationwide impact.

More on voter rights


  1. Under these proposed rules, I would have been deprived of my right to vote. Some years ago, I moved into a new apartment in November. It takes six weeks (at least) for a new ID to arrive by mail, so even if I had gone down to the courthouse the very day I signed the lease, I would not have had a state-issued photo ID to present at the polls on November 4. I didn't even have a utility bill yet; who would four days after moving in? I had someone who was registered vouch for me at the polls, which would not be allowed under these new laws.

    Of course, I could have travelled back to my old state and voted illegally under false pretenses with my state-issued photo ID. So how does this prevent fraud again? I would have been allowed to vote in a state I didn't even live in, but not allowed to vote where I did live because an ID couldn't arrive in time.

    I'm not saying this is stupid, just that it's ridiculous.

  2. Yep, our corporate government is of course pleased to hear that their disharmony is working so well. So it goes with every thing done by Bu$hco and the Neo Conservative cabal with their Midas touch and penchant for turning the sheeple to into compost.