Just out of curiousity, how does one go through life without identification? The state issues id cards for those who don't drive, and it would seem to me imperative to have id. What happens when they ask to see your id when using a credit or debit card? Cash a check? Write a check? Buy beer?

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the law, but to me it seems like having valid identification is not overly burdensome and would be somewhat necessary to survive in society today.

The district court, Seventh Circuit court, and a majority of the Supreme Court all feel that a photo ID requirement is constitutional. Seems reasonable to me too. I don't find anything in the Consitution that leads me to believe otherwise.

Great post Alex. IWMPB, The case that was brought before the court was a woman who's ID had expired when she went to vote but she also had a phone bill with her name and address on it. The didn't let her vote and the Court thought that was okay.

Thanks for posting this Alex. IP 112 would be disastrous at a time when we could easily be taking steps to make our voter registration system more secure and accessible with programs like Same Day voter registration.

Given the magnitude of the problem of illegal immigration, this seems pretty reasonable to have secure elections.

Folks show ID every day to cash checks, rent movies, and other such mundane things. Showing proof of identification and/or citizenship to vote is not such an imposition.

It seems a bit over the top. Although Indiana has a free state ID for low income and there's a discount for seniors or the disabled.

What do they do for people adopted? They don't have the same name as their birth certificate.

While I'm all for access for everyone to vote,

I do wonder ....

If you can't figure out how to get picture ID ....

Should you be choosing my next President????

Katy, you must be thinking of some other case. In this case nobody was ever denied anything. This was a facial challenge and there was no evidence that anyone had ever been denied a vote. A facial challenge of unconstitutionality without any evidence is a tough row to hoe for any plaintiff and they failed at all three levels in the court system. Game, set, match.

"...they did not have government-issued IDs with their current addresses." Nice and carefully worded. Could it be because they are living at college, but still vote in their home state? That stat doesn't say much about the issue at hand.

The author of the lead opinion is Justice Stevens, one of only two Justices who totally rejected Bush's effort to stop the Florida recount. The implied charge that this was a politically motivated opinion is unfair.

No need to twist the facts or make unfounded accusations; that only undermines your credibility.

Randy, I was referring to this:

"Lawyers who challenged the case cited the experience of one would-be Indiana voter, Valerie Williams, who was turned away from the polling place in November 2006 by officials who told her that a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address and an expired driver’s license were no longer sufficient.

“Of course, I threw a fit,” she said in a January interview with The New York Times, recalling how she cast a provisional ballot which was never counted. Ms. Williams, in her early 60’s, is black — and is a Republican." from NY Times.

Honestly, you can’t cash a check to buy a beer without picture ID but you think it is an undue burden when helping to keep elections clean? This ruling had broad support from both ideological wings of the court as a common sense way to eliminate potential voter fraud.

Let’s hope this ruling prods Oregon’s legislature to tighten up our loose voting requirements where a utility bill is currently enough to get you a ballot.

The court brushed off the constitutional problem by declaring that the burden of acquiring an ID was minimal, thus equal.

Is it some kind of coincidence then, that the types of people who tend not to have IDs are the same people who are underserved in nearly every other aspect of society?

Or maybe those people just lazy, and we should write them off.

On a related note: the Bus Project's Building Votes crew just hit its primary goal of registering 7,000 young folks. A photo-ID law would have prevented us from doing any of that.

These are ridiculous comparisons people are making. Not everyone in the 18-29 range lacks a savings account and spends their money on beer. (And nobody asks for ID when using a credit/debit card, seriously) It's not a matter of young people not knowing HOW, they may just not need one.

If you fail to understand my generation so completely, should you really be choosing my next President? (It's gonna affect me a whole lot more)

The voter ID law is an exterme solution in search of a problem.

I have never seen any evidence that there was are catual cases of people voting when they shouldn't. There's a lot of hysteria on the right about millions of illegal immigrants impersonating registered voters. But I've never heard of a case where it's happened.

The goal should be getting all the citizens to vote. This just raises a barrier.

And what about all the elderly people who no longer drive and have let their drivers licenses expire?

And Kev: You're right that many young people are college students, who may or may not vote in their home states. But having an out of state ID shouldn't disqualify anyone from voting in their state of residence. It doesn't here in Oregon.

As someone who registers young people and college students to vote on a near-daily basis, I can tell you there are plenty of students who pay attention, want to vote in Oregon, and--this will surely ASTOUND you--have no Oregon ID.

Perhaps my accusations of political motivation were too pointed, at least as they pertain to Justice Stevens, whom I generally admire. But the political intent behind the law itself in my mind is unquestionable. This is play book right wing strategy.

27 minutes til the registration deadline. I'm gonna scram.

In Oregon, state ID cards (not for driving) cost $29 and may be renewed for $25. Not a huge burden for most of us, but it might be a problem for someone living hand to mouth.

If a state requires someone to pay the state for ID before allowing them to vote, isn't that a poll tax in violation of the 24th Amendment?

Seems to me that if a state requires voters present an approved state identification, they would need to provide the appropriate ID free to charge, regardless of ability to pay.

Nope, Kevin, actually at least 2 state legislators are vocal supporters of Steve - Senators Ginny Burdick and Bill Morrisette. http://novickforsenate.com/standing_strong_steve

Even though I think the law is unfair and unnecessary, I don't think it's unconstitutional. I think the best remedy is to repeal the law because it's a bad law. But not every bad law is unconstitutional.

It's clear as the nose on your face that Republicans have been complaining about a problem that is infinitesimal - voting by non-citizens, in order to increase ID requirements that will reduce the number of poor citizens who vote [usually Democratic, by the way].

Documentation of such illegal voting is as common as documentation of family farms being lost to the estate tax - zip, nada, nil.

The SCOTUS ruled against poll taxes many years ago. Now they are reversing course with reasoning that some legal observers believe could have been used to approve poll taxes.

Republican party - 1 democracy - 0

I guess none of you remember Nixon v Kennedy and the sudden appearance of enough democratic votes to swing the election to Kennedy. Of course there is organized voter fraud. You who rail against voter ID are transparent in your intentions.

in order to increase ID requirements that will reduce the number of poor citizens who vote

I thought the poor and uneducated voted Republican against their best interests or have things changed since GWB was voted President once and won a court battle the other time.

I can't believe this law was upheld in the SCOTUS but I suppose I can see why. Seems like it may backfire on the Repubs too though.

Actually, in a way it wasn't 6-3 so much as 3-3-3, with the first 2 groups of 3 agreeing enough to make it the majority, but not writing one majority opinion.

Imagine you lived in the Gulf Coast during Katrina, or in certain parts of NW Oregon during recent storms. Imagine you were lucky to get away from the storm with the clothes on your back. If you didn't have your wallet with you, what would you do for ID?

Same with someone who doesn't drive, doesn't have student ID of any kind, and the government non-driver ID expires frequently (there was some discussion of low income people having to appear in person at the county seat once a year).

I think this is a bad decision---Democrats need to take back control of the Indiana legislature and change the law.

Oregon Voters' Pamphlet, OR. Primary Election, May 20, 2008...Page 6..."If you do not provide valid identification, you will not be eligible to vote for Federal races". "You will, however, still be eligible to vote for state and local contests." And you think Bradbury is putting state in one pile and feds in another? Really? YES ILLEGALS CAN VOTE.

Old people have a S.S.#, that's how they get Social Security checks and Medicare. Poor people have ID, thats how they get Food Stamps, Welfare, W.I.C., sec. 8 housing, etc. Young people have ID to rent a movie, get a job, sign up for College or buy smokes or use their Debit or Credit card OR should/could get ID too vote.

You Democrats told me EVERYONE has to be a Citizen and PROVE it, to get Benefits. Now you say Americans don't have ID? Which is it?

The U.S. Supremes get it, when will you?

Get your valid #112 initiative sheet today @ www.respectforlawact.com

I can show Voter Fraud but Kari won't let me.

"TODAY WE MARCH, TOMORROW WE VOTE"-Ramon Ramirez PCUN, May day 2007.

I certainly disagree with Indiana's Voter ID Law as a piece of legislation but not the Court's decision to uphold it. Law didn't have to b a good idea, it just had to be constitutional. The argument citing the lack of evidence of fraud is largely irrelevant. States are not required to prove the incidence of an undesirable behavior before legislating to prevent it (otherwise legislation would always be reactive). I hope we can all agree that voter fraud is undesirable.

This post also leaves out an important provision in the Indiana law and one required for all voter ID laws under HAVA. Any voter without proper photo ID can still cast a provisional ballot which will be counted if the voter completes the required affidavit at the count clerk's office with in ten days of the election.

This is the best post I have read in a long while at this site. It is nice to read a post that is actually thought provoking and attempts to engage readers in political discourse. Minus the Pro-Merkley dribble that exists above on this comment page (and a little too often on the main posts I might add) this post gives me hope that there are actually some grounded intelligent liberals left in Oregon and that the elitist "I can type faster than you can" mudslingers that have pervaded this blog in recent weeks might go the way of the election cycle sooner rather than later.

For the record, I feel the ruling is an injustice, but I also feel like Indiana should be granted the power to make this choice if its elected officials choose to do so.

This was a loser case from the beginning, not sure why the Dems in Indiana even took it to the Supreme Court since now they've lost the battle and the war.

It is interesting to read the oral argument of this case. This case probably could have been tossed for a lack of standing (there wasn't anyone who had actually been harmed) but it seems like maybe the Court wanted to get a ruling on the subject. If they had bounced it on standing then they would just have to deal with it again in the future.

If you read the Scalia opinon you'll find that he makes a decent argument why a poll tax is constitutional. I doubt anyone is going to take the bait and implement one but he did open the door.

Kari, Here is some stuff and thx for asking, This info, documented in more detail, has been given to the U.S. Attorney's office in Portland recently... 4.1.08

1. The same Voter I.D. cards are issued to voter registration applicants, whether or NOT they have submitted HAVA required proof of I.D.

2.ORS 247.002 iem 2. "Elector" means an individual qualified to vote under section 2, Article 11, Oregon Constitution.

if you check that article, you'll see it indicates the person should be a US citizen, and that is why the question is asked on the voter registration application.

1. The Centralized Voter Registration System, (CVRS) contracted out to compile, to Saber Consulting,has thousand of people listed with birthdates as loony as the year 353, 1800 and 11/11/1111. The S.O.S. says that birthdates were not required until recently. However, ORS .247.121 regarding required registration information, item (e) states "date and place of birth". It dates back to 1957

2. There are countless folk who have given the same street address in more than one county, and have voted in all those counties for a number of elections.

3. There are countless folk sharing the same address, anything up to 100 + people.

4. A voter in Marion County has given an address of a resident who has never heard of her, but gets her ballot/s in the Keizer Cikty Hall P.O. Box along with 3 other people. Despite the resident's complaint to Marion County Elections, the matter remains unaddressed.

<hr/>

Also...

WBBM 780 - Chicago's #1 source for local news, traffic and weather

Posted: Thursday, 24 January 2008 9:27AM

Undocumented Aliens May Be Registering To Vote

GENEVA, Ill. (STNG) - It's a question many have asked: Is it possible for an illegal immigrant or a legal noncitizen to end up an illegally registered voter? It appears the answer is "yes." "It's a very difficult thing to handle," said Kane County Clerk Jack Cunningham, who is in charge of elections and overseeing voter registration. "We never single out any group. There has to be a presumption that they are citizens unless it's proven otherwise. We, at this level, don't have much control over the issue." According to a mail-in form provided on the clerk's Web site, voter registraton applicants must answer "yes" or "no" to the question: "Are you a citizen of the United States?" Applicants also are given the option to submit a driver's license number or Social Security number, but doing so is not required, according to the form. Either a photo identification or another document -- such as a utility bill or paycheck -- can be submitted, the form states.

<hr/>

AND this...

Hundreds of Illegals Have Registered to Vote in Bexar County

Officials are confident new procedures will purge them from the rolls By Jim Forsyth Wednesday, May 16, 2007 Hundreds of illegal immigrants have registered to vote in Bexar County in recent years and dozens of them have actually cast ballots, canceling out the votes of U.S. citizens, 1200 WOAI news will report Thursday morning.

Figures obtained by 1200 WOAI news shows 303 illegals successfully registered to vote, and at least 41 cast ballots in various elections.

Bexar County Elections Administrator Jackie Callanan confirmed the figures, but she says a new form of voter registration card, which requires people to swear they are citizens when they register, should help cut the problem, because people who vote illegally can be charged with perjury. http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=119078&article=2138213

<hr/>

An Illegal can also be charged with Perjury for signing an I-9, (authorization to work in the U.S.) that every Employer is required of every new employee to fill out and sign and to keep it in the employees file. So there is no fear of perjury

AND I have more too.

But Bradbury is not looking for this and you have to look to find. Hopefully the U.S. Attorney will follow through.

We are also now going thru the State prison ICE hold list, over 1,100 now, and matching that with the voter registration list. Will take a while.

Kevin's comment, which is not unusual in the lack of understanding one sees on this blog, demonstrates how some people just "don't get it"

This is all the more compelling of a reason to elect a Senate candidate like Merkley who has a realistic chance of defeating Gordon Smith. We need as many D's as possible in the Senate because nobody gets onto the Supremes without first getting by the Senate.

Merkley has hardly been a vocal advocate against Real ID in Oregon. Real ID in fact was intended by a Republican Congress to be a key piece of the entire surveilled society, including making photo-id (which was always envisioned to be a Real ID driver's license for most people.) Instead, Merkley in his trademark brand of cowardice and always looking out first for his personal career, bravely led his chamber towards the unprincipled "middle ground" on Real ID.

Rather than speak out against Real ID in a principled fashion, he chose to work with Kulongoski (another DINO) who similarly started out advocating the legislature should comply with Real ID. Merkley's effort was for an impotent resolution essentially just asking Congress to work with the states to bring about compliance with Real ID. One can understand his lack of spine when one remembers his entire campaign strategy of presenting himself as the pick of those Congress people he would have had to stand up to if he opposed on principle Real ID. Merkley has long ago conditioned himself to be a non-leader to change that at this point in his career.

Now, the interesting thing about the SCOTUS ruling is that it also all but delegitimizes Oregon's VBM system. I oppose the absurd extremes to which the SCOTUS ruling took a point purely for corrupt political purposes. Nonetheless, intellectual honesty demands that we admit that the underlying principle that we should have a system in which the person that marks the ballot can at least be known to be the person to whom the ballot was properly issued (e.g. handed to them in a polling place pursuant to an oath, without presentation of a picture ID, that the person was the person in the county maintained ballot roll) is sound.

Our VBM system is inherently unsound in this regard. In fact the arguments of the proponents is that the inherent unsoundness of our system doesn't matter if it is more convenient for a certain lazy but privileged slice of the electorate --- the able-bodied who have address stability. In his own comment, Aronson notes 19% of American 18-29 year old people reported that they did not have government-issued IDs with their current address.. Since the motor-voter laws have made it easy for people to update their address at the same time they are updating the address on their driver's license, or identity card many states issue in lieu of driver's licenses to those not eligible for a driver's license, the point is clear.

The Centralized Voter Registration System, (CVRS) contracted out to compile, to Saber Consulting,has thousand of people listed with birthdates as loony as the year 353, 1800 and 11/11/1111. There are about 2000 voters in the system with bad dates of birth (mostly now listed as 0, 1900 and 1901, which were both the result of blank dates of birth on various old computers). Most of these are very old registrations, all before SOS Bradbury implemented the new system. Over 300 of the bad birthdates are from Jackson county because their old computer registration system was very bad. Typographic errors in data entry on the old systems translated into blank (zero) dates of birth on the new systems

There are countless folk sharing the same address, anything up to 100 + people. I found several Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Sites and Several homeless shelters and homeless service centers in Portland. and 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd in Portland.. That's Reed college. Lots of people should be registering at these addresses. Alas, few of them vote, according to the Sec of State records.

Next time, maybe you should do a little more investigating before imply voter fraud.

More good news: Duplicate registrations, which allowed a handful of people to double-vote each year during the Keisling years, have been virtually eliminated under the Saber system and Bill Bradbury.

Just curious: How many people really have no usuable identification at all? When you register to vote, you need identification, at least in the state of Oregon. So if you can't vote at the poll because you have no identification, how can you register?

<h2>In addition, if people 18-29 do not have ID at the current address, they could always vote via absentee ballot. How are they being disenfranchised? In addition, doesn't the DMV require you to get a Oregon Driver license once you move here for a certain amount of time?</h2>