Polling Place Photo ID Restrictions in Indiana Upheld by SCOTUS in Courageous and Historic Dredd Scott-like Decision

But Why Stop at Keeping Black and Elderly Fraudsters from Stealing Elections?...

Brad Friedman Byon 4/28/2008, 3:22pm PT

As the great voting rights advocate, Rush Limbaugh, trumpeted at the beginning of his radio show this morning, today's 6 to 3 Supreme Court ruling allowing new, modern restrictions regarding which citizens may or may not cast votes at American polling places on Election Day, is "a huge, huge, huge move forward to undercut Democrat efforts to commit voter fraud this fall."

Fortunately, instead of coming in June as expected, this decision on an Indiana Photo ID restriction case comes just in time to prevent massive voter fraud at the polls in Indiana's Democratic Primary two weeks from now, when millions of fraudulent Democratic voters were almost certainly plotting to try and show up to vote on electronic voting systems on which it's impossible to prove one way or another whether they did or didn't vote the way the machines will tell us they did. With voting systems like those in use across the Hoosier State, and elsewhere around the country, it's all the more reason to ensure those Democrats can't show up and commit the fraud they were probably planning to engage in on May 6th!

The news is certainly the most important SCOTUS decision pertaining to elections since the triumphant, well-considered, and much-beloved Bush v. Gore decision of 2000. Today's verdict will undoubtedly be heralded and taught at American institutions of learning for decades to come, with the same reverence as that dedicated to landmark Supreme Court decisions like 1857's Dredd Scott v. Sandford ruling, which thankfully found that "people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants --- whether or not they were slaves --- could never be citizens of the United States, and that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories."

The Supremes have done it again! But no such important American political battle like that which was won today is ever fought alone. Due thanks must go to the long-fought efforts of countable simple citizens around our nation, concerned about the integrity of voting. We'd be remiss without noting some of the selfless freedom fighters who helped make today's great news a reality: Courageous, unheralded voices, such as those of "longtime advocate of voter rights" and Bush/Cheney '04 Inc. General Counsel Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, tireless Republican "voter fraud" information-wareness man John Fund, and Bush-appointed DoJ Civil Rights Division guardians of the ballot box, like Hans von Spakovsky, Bradley Schlozman and its former Voting Section chief, John "Minorities Die First" Tanner.

Thanks to brave men like them, and Mr. Limbaugh, of course, it'll be a new day at the polling place this fall! One in which, if Republicans legislators around the country hurry up and get on the anti-voter fraud ball, they can assure that millions of Democratic-leaning citizens won't be fraudulently mistaken for actual voters when they show up at their polling places this November.

But are restrictions that may keep just blacks and the elderly from casting a ballot enough to ensure the true integrity of our vote? Shouldn't we keep fighting to ensure that legitimate voters like you and me don't have our voices diluted by even more fraudulent groups out there, like gays, communists, and dead people, who every year change the results of election after election through their insidious anti-American efforts, because I say they do?

Read on for a couple of new ideas. Clearly, today's SCOTUS decision is a good start, but it hardly goes far enough to ensure that the right American voices are heard, as our founders intended! 14th Amendment, equal protection, blah, blah, blah, my ass!...

"Anti-voter fraud efforts this fall will be easier," concerned voting integrity activist, Limbaugh said while sharing today's great news with his millions of listeners over the publicly-owned airwaves this morning, as he helpfully enlightened them on how "the Democrats shut down the FEC, largely to get away with more voter fraud."

The Supreme Court, of course, agrees. Writing for one group of justices in the majority, Justice Stevens argued [PDF] that "in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process. The first is the interest in deterring and detecting voter fraud."

I'll say! That is definitely "the first"! Those naysayers, such as the vote-huggers of the DoJ and at the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), who say such fraud doesn't actually occur to any noticeable extent, much less one which could change the result of an election, are just plain wrong. Even though that opinion seems to be shared with the proponents of Photo ID restriction laws who have been unable to present any substantive evidence to support their case, beyond the fear that concerns about the possibility of such fraud among the electorate is reason enough to impose such restrictions.

Sure, the dissenting SCOTUS opinion points out "the fact that the State has not come across a single instance of in-person voter impersonation fraud in all of Indiana’s history," but that sort of reasoning only matters if you pay attention to it, and I see no reason to do so.

So the DoJ and EAC, and all the other kinda-gay Constitution Lovers, can take their Marxist facts, terrorist-loving sciences, and troop-hating evidence and stick it where the sun don't shine (e.g., inside a computerized voting machine which counts votes secretly, in such a way that just one person could easily change the results of an entire election without detection).

Lest you get the idea that only Democratic-leaning minorities such as Dredd Scott decision-skirting African-Americans are working to defraud the system, the court went on to explain that the easy ride for Democratic-leaning senior citizen criminals is also to be a thing of the past.

"The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate," they wrote, "is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerks office."

Hear that you elderly shut-ins, lucky enough to get a ride to the polling place on Election Day? You can just get back in your car, drive down to the circuit court clerk's office over in the county seat, and sign an affidavit almost anytime in the days following an election, in order to prove that you are really you! It's easy to ensure your vote gets counted, you slackers!

"Indiana has a valid interest in participating in a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient," the Supremes found.

Sorry, you well-moneyed forces of Big Democracy! In case you missed it, that's "nationwide," baby! Thor Hearne and his folks are just getting started with their modernization [PDF] of those antiquated and inefficient election procedures, as suggested by that tired old U.S. Constitution, decades of history, and other related, yet quaint and antiquated "laws" and such.

Don't you Democrats understand the Constitution is a living document, meant to be interpreted liberally?! 14th Amendment, 14th Shmamendment!

"Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters right to vote," the wizened Supremes found.

No, it doesn't. And by "most voters," obviously they mean any number of the 10 to 30 million American citizens ("roughly 6–10% of voting-age Americans," as that loser Justice Souter whined in his dissent) who have gotten away with voting without having a state-issued drivers license or photo ID for far too long!

Most voters! Get that, fraudsters? Most voters will have no problem with this restriction. So why should we worry about a few million folks like you who do? It's the big numbers that count, not the small ones. Besides, had just 538 more of you been allowed to vote successfully in Florida in 2000 --- and had officials there wasted their time in counting those votes --- we'd likely have never had such an important Supreme Court decision in the first place!

So stop your whining, sore losers, because most of us don't care to hear it! And it's not as if the Constitution was instituted to protect the interests of the minority over the ruling majority! If you spent more time going to college and getting an education, and less time living off the government dole, you'd probably know that by now.

Yeah, I know...While there may be little --- okay, no actual evidence that Photo ID laws, like the one affirmed for Indiana, would have stopped any particular polling place fraud any time in Indiana history, much less have changed the results of any known election. I also am well aware that mountains of actual scientific evidence, from several states and academic studies from across the nation, have shown that a single person, with inappropriate access to a single electronic voting machine, could flip an entire election with little probability of detection --- whether he or she has a state-issued Photo ID or not.

But fortunately, no similar cases to adjudicate whether banning such e-voting systems would similarly "reduce risk of fraud" are before the court, thanks to Democrats, and Democratic public advocacy groups across the country like People for the American Way (PFAW) and Common Cause, who have gone out of their way to assure the continued use of such voting machines, and to assure all of us that they are perfectly safe to use. Such groups have long argued, with no actual evidence to prove it, that such voting machines actually help to enfranchise minority voters, despite a similar lack of evidence showing that any such voting system has ever actually recorded a voter's choice for a candidate or initiative on the ballot during any actual election, accurately, as per their intent

But all of that is likely because those groups just hope to use such voting machines to commit election fraud, now that their voter fraud days are coming to a an end.

The lack of appreciation for that fact, and lack of lawsuits brought to stop their use in American elections, is also, no doubt, seen as a "huge, huge, huge, move forward" for great civil rights advocates such as Rush Limbaugh.

When it comes to polling place ID requirements, however, why stop at today's decision? I've got a few ideas that democracy's Republican heroes who have gotten us this far may want to implement and test at the friendly Supreme Court, to really shut the ballot box door, once and for all, on those who would undermine our precious democracy.

If we hope to ensure that only the right people vote, and not the wrong, fraudulent Americans, it's time to put our laws where our mouths are! Here are a few ideas...

Voters must vote with spouses, to prove they're not gay. Copy of marriage license may be shown in lieu of actual spouse, for voters 60 or younger. Divorce will not be a deterrent to voting, unless said divorces were undertaken under CA or NV law (or from other states to be determined later...maybe at the polling the place...on Election Day.)

Voters must name five Fox News anchors to prove they're not illegal immigrants. Only Americans would watch Fox News. And no, just saying the words "Lou Dobbs" won't do.

Voters must present current bank statement, showing $10,000 or more in savings account, in order to prove voter is not dead. This one is just common sense.

Since dead voters may be mistaken for old people, voters must prove they are alive by performing 10 push-ups before voting. This can hardly be seen as onerous, especially since strength is needed to properly fill in the oval and/or push the touch-screen to make voter selections on the "ballot".

Those are just some suggestions, but I'm certain the non-partisan voter advocates at places like the ACVR can come up with many more ways to fight for integrity at the ballot box.

Caveat: The above suggestions are only necessary at the polling place, just like the Photo ID restrictions, since we all know that absentee voter fraud is not a problem at all, and easily defeated by existing...well, it's not a problem at all. And besides, it's often overwhelmingly Republicans and overseas military members who vote that way, and you don't hate the troops, do you?!

I didn't think so. May God bless America. A shining city on a hill.

slashed in now available starting at just $5! Prices nowin The BRAD BLOG's Election Integrity Fund Drive! Please support our continuing coverage of your election system, as found nowhere else. Click here for a number of cool new collector's edition Premium products



