Stevens: Law justified to protect integrity, reliability of electoral process

AP updated 8:50 a.m. PT, Mon., April. 28, 2008

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

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. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

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, just as they did in 2000.

The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups [including the ACLU] opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

………………………………………………………………………………….

Big surprise of the day! Liberals oppose the prevention of voter fraud. Of course they do; fraudulent votes count towards democrats. You know it and they know. Here is one for you conspiracy theorists that believe that George Bush was voted in by fraudulent votes. Why would the Republicans make voter fraud more difficult by enforcing restrictions, if they needed to use it in order to get the votes they need?

And to top it off! Liberals refer to conservative efforts to enforce our laws as “a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor, and minority voters” from participating in an election. Why not call the liberal’s motives what they are? A thinly veiled effort to encourage voter fraud because they know it will help them. Let’s face it; criminals are much more likely to vote Democrat. If liberals had their way, criminals would be able to vote from prison, that way we’d have Dems running the country. Man! What standards!

We used to have standards for who could vote. The Dems want to do away with all of our standards of decency and competence to allow anyone to vote. Just one last thing, Dems are the ones who generally oppose, whether on principle or on pragmatism, the idea of requiring voters to pass a basic civics (in English). Why? They think that Republicans are the stupid ones. If Republicans really are the stupid ones, why not require a very basic minimum competency in order to vote? Come on Dems, you’ve got nothing to lose.

At any rate, this court decision is a victory for justice in this great nation!