SCOTUS upholds law on fantasy fraud

By Libby

This is why we need to elect Democrats. So we don't get any more judges who uphold laws that "solve" non-existent problems. Just in time for the primary, SCOTUS okayed Indiana's voter ID scheme, scam, election fixing law. Marty Lederman analyzes the precedents the court based their 'considered' judgment on, and Kevin Drum has already unpacked Marty's piece, so I'm just going to quote him.

And what are the examples of voter fraud that John Paul Stevens managed to adduce to support this paragraph? Marty Lederman tells us: (1) Boss Tweed stuffing ballot boxes in 1868, (2) a case in Washington state in which one person committed voter fraud, and (3) a 2003 case of fraud in Indiana which, as Stevens acknowledges, the new law wouldn't cover because it was done via absentee ballot.

Presumably these were the best examples that anyone could come up with. And what do you conclude from them? That's easy: in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare while absentee voter fraud is, perhaps, a problem genuinely worth addressing. Needless to say, though, Indiana's law does exactly the opposite: it requires voter ID for in-person voting and does nothing to ensure the integrity of absentee voting.

Kevin goes on to point out the obvious, "restricting in-person voting tends to reduce turnout among minorities, the elderly, voters with disabilities, the poor, and the young tend to vote Democratic. Absentee voters, by contrast, tend to vote Republican." [Insert your own conclusions here.]

Of course, as shameful as that is, it won't make as big a difference as this will

Voting rights activists who hoped the federal government would help local governments pay for paper trails and audits for electronic voting machines have gone from elation to frustration as they watched Republicans who supported such a proposal in committee vote against bringing it to the House floor.

The result: The elections in November will likely be marred by the same accusations of fraud and error involving voting machines that arose in the aftermath of the 2004 presidential race.

When New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt’s Emergency Assistance for Secure Elections Act came up for a vote in the House Administration Committee on April 2, the Republicans on the committee gave it their unanimous support. But two weeks later, those same Republican members voted against moving the bill to the House floor. It would have taken a two-thirds vote to push the bill to the floor; with most House Republicans opposed, the bill didn’t make it that far.

In other words, we won't have a verifiable vote in key areas of the US and all this fighting over the primary isn't going to mean a damn thing without it . All your votes still belong to a GOP friendly corporation.

Comments

[lala]

"SCOTUS" sounds like "scrotum". hee.

[DaveA]

Somebody should ask the old codger Supems where there birth certificats are. Ask O'Cnner, or the decrepit dead Request, and the good Thurgood Marshal. And the many long departed supreams throughout the ages where there birth certificats are. Just ask the great John Marshal where his birth certificate is. And PS; Does Clarence Thomas Have a birth cirtificit, I think not?. And where is Abhram Lincon's Birth certificat or George Washington's?

[Libby]

Well that's beside the point. The point is that our vote will not be verified in November. It's not too late to make some noise over it.

[anderson]

does nothing to ensure the integrity of absentee voting.

That is because this does not need to be guaranteed. The ones most affected by this law will be issued absentee or provisional ballots, which are routinely thrown out or never counted. And that is why this law is the way it is.

[anderson]

Sorry, I conflated two issues here. The provisional ballots, issued to those who actually do show up without "proper ID," will be tossed, have been tossed.