In writing that previous post on the Supreme Court ruling on voter ID laws, I had to shake my head again over the blatant bias present in the story I read. Mark Sherman, the AP reporter who wrote this thing, ought to be ashamed. Given that we’re talking about 1) a member of the journalistic profession and, especially, 2) an employee of the Associated Press, that ain’t gonna happen. It begins in paragraph 2. Check out the loaded phraseology:
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which…
A “splintered” ruling? The ruling passed by a factor of 2-to-1. Since when is a vote carried by a 2-to-1 margin considered “splintered”? The impression such a term gives is that the Court just went all to pieces. Even rulings that pass 5-to-4 (which is a real splintering of the Court) are, at best, referred to as a “split” ruling. It’s not that the ruling was split that’s the issue. It’s that Sherman just had to find some term with emotive baggage to really play up the disagreement. Was this done so as to call the ruling into question?
Then there’s this sentence which, for the life of me, makes no damned sense at all:
It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush mirrored.
Sorry, I don’t get what he’s saying with the “mirrored” word. I would hasten to point out that what “sealed the 2000 election” for George Bush was the fact that he won the vote for President in accordance with our laws, not that the Supreme Court ruled on anything in particular. But the AP is so invested in continuing that little lie, it’s never going to change until it gets knocked out of the business.
Finally, I find it fascinating that this paragraph ends the story:
There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud _ of the sort the law was designed to thwart _ or voters being inconvenienced by the law’s requirements
First off, let’s correct this little mistaken impression. There’s no history of voters being inconvenienced by this kind of law because they aren’t inconvenienced. We have ample proof of this since these laws have been in effect in a variety of locations for a few years now and the reports show there’s no such inconvenience. We know this because we looked for it and it’s not there. There’s “little history” of this kind of fraud occurring because we haven’t been able to look for it. Now we can, so it’ll be interesting to see if anyone’s dumb enough to try it.
More to my point, however, is the implication that these laws just aren’t necessary because there’s “little evidence” of fraud. Well, there’s “little evidence” that crooks are buying guns at gun shows but that’s not stopping the AP from shilling for laws regulating such purchases. I’ve never seen them go out of their way to speak of the lack of any history of people committing crimes with guns they bought in this fashion, either. But that’s because they like gun regulation. (Hell, they’d like to have a gun ban but they’ll settle for regulating it to death.) And, good little Democrats that they are, they don’t like voter ID so they speak of the lack of history when it suits them.
The Supreme Court has upheld an Indiana law requiring people to show photo ID’s before being allowed to cast a vote in an election. In a 6-3 ruling, the Justices have backed the law as a valid protection against fraud:
The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.
Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented.
Several states, including Virginia have such laws. Courts have upheld some of them (AZ, GA, MI) but have also struck down at least one (MO). This ruling removes the Constitutional argument from the debate and might permit other states which have been considering such a law to proceed with passage. We already know from experience that these laws do not, as some have claimed, present a barrier to the elderly or poor in exercising their votes. With this ruling, perhaps we can get on with determining the best way to secure the process now that the concept has been ruled permissible.