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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.