Supremes appear to back voter law

January 9, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Questions posed by U.S. Supreme Court justices today suggest they might be reluctant to overturn Indianaâ??s voter ID law.

Reports from the proceedings quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote on the court, as asking why the court should be asked to â??invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience.â??

The 2005 law requires photo identification in order to vote. Its backers said the law was needed in order to reduce fraud.

In todayâ??s hearing, the liberal justices were critical of the law. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for one, asked why the state couldnâ??t simply require voters to sign a sworn statement on election day in order to avoid having to get an ID.

The law, considered one of the most stringent in the nation, was taken to the high court by the Indiana Democratic Party. The party contends that the demand for a photo ID imposes an unnecessary burden on voters â?? particularly minorities, low-income and senior citizens, many of whom tend to vote Democratic.

A ruling is expected this summer. What should the justices do?
  • Depending on how old you look you're asked to show ID when you buy alcohol or tobacco, to get into certain movies and adult establishments.

    Surely one of our most important responsibilities, to elect those who govern us, is worthy of at least that protection.

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. If I were a developer I would be looking at the Fountain Square and Fletcher Place neighborhoods instead of Broad Ripple. I would avoid the dysfunctional BRVA with all of their headaches. It's like deciding between a Blackberry or an iPhone 5s smartphone. BR is greatly in need of updates. It has become stale and outdated. Whereas Fountain Square, Fletcher Place and Mass Ave have become the "new" Broad Ripples. Every time I see people on the strip in BR on the weekend I want to ask them, "How is it you are not familiar with Fountain Square or Mass Ave? You have choices and you choose BR?" Long vacant storefronts like the old Scholar's Inn Bake House and ZA, both on prominent corners, hurt the village's image. Many business on the strip could use updated facades. Cigarette butt covered sidewalks and graffiti covered walls don't help either. The whole strip just looks like it needs to be power washed. I know there is more to the BRV than the 700-1100 blocks of Broad Ripple Ave, but that is what people see when they think of BR. It will always be a nice place live, but is quickly becoming a not-so-nice place to visit.

  2. I sure hope so and would gladly join a law suit against them. They flat out rob people and their little punk scam artist telephone losers actually enjoy it. I would love to run into one of them some day!!

  3. Biggest scam ever!! Took 307 out of my bank ac count. Never received a single call! They prey on new small business and flat out rob them! Do not sign up with these thieves. I filed a complaint with the ftc. I suggest doing the same ic they robbed you too.

  4. Woohoo! We're #200!!! Absolutely disgusting. Bring on the congestion. Indianapolis NEEDS it.

  5. So Westfield invested about $30M in developing Grand Park and attendance to date is good enough that local hotel can't meet the demand. Carmel invested $180M in the Palladium - which generates zero hotel demand for its casino acts. Which Mayor made the better decision?