View Focus

The Supreme Court makes a disappointing ruling to uphold “Voter ID Law”.

The Supreme Court decided by a 6 to 3 majority to uphold the "Voter ID Law" in the state of Indiana. The proponents of the law wanted to deter people from using identity theft to cast votes on the behalf of another citizen. However, the critics emphasize that there has not been strong evidence that voter impersonations have been occurring in Indiana, and the cost of imposing such a law would be putting an unnecessary barrier between the voters and the voting booths.

Many have accused the law for attempting to disenfranchise minority or economically disadvantaged voters. Many citizens in these categories are mostly members of the Democratic Party, and some have even accused the Republicans of attempting to change the voting landscape in favor of the Republican Party for the upcoming 2008 Presidential elections.

The "Voter ID Law" requires all voting citizens to carry government issued photo identification to the voting booths. State issued driver's license would work, but other forms of identification, such as utility bills or private school issued photo identifications, will not work anymore. It should be noted that many elderly citizens do not carry driver's license or even other forms of government photo identifications. The law requires these citizens to pay the state government to get separate photo identification in order to vote.

Putting political suspicion aside, it is gravely disappointing that the Supreme Court decided to uphold a law that puts many qualified voters out of the reach of the voting booth unless these voters decide to pay additional money to the state. It is even questionable whether the court is being consistent with its other historical rulings. What circumstances make the Voter ID law valid while the Poll Tax is unconstitutional? The principle question on the Voter ID Law is not to prevent voter impersonation but whether or not the state can impose additional voting qualifications to qualified voters themselves.

Justice Stevens, Justice Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito have all decided to side with the infringement of voter's rights.