Courting Republicans
by digby
While we’re waiting to find out what happens in New Hampshire today, we might want to think about something equally (if not more) profound that will happen tomorrow in Washington DC:
The most revealing indicator of the state of our democracy is not to be found in the snowdrifts of New Hampshire but in the marbled chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court. Soon enough we will discover whether the court under Chief Justice John Roberts will become a partisan tool in the national Republican drive to place constraints on voting that are targeted at those who tend to support Democrats.
Not since the Supreme Court stopped the Florida presidential election recount in 2000 has a voting case been so significant, or so overflowing with partisan bile.
On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge to Indiana’s strict law requiring photo identification in order for a voter to cast a ballot at the polls. The state claims the law is necessary to stop voter fraud. Yet no one—not Indiana officials, not the U.S. Justice Department, which has taken the state’s side in the dispute, nor any commission—has come up with a single case in the state’s history in which an imposter showed up and cast a vote.
Never mind. In 2005, Republicans who controlled the Indiana Legislature and the governor’s mansion imposed the toughest photo identification requirement in the nation. Not coincidentally, studies have repeatedly shown that those least likely to possess photo identification—most commonly a driver’s license—are African-Americans, the poor, the elderly and the disabled. In short, they are more likely to vote Democratic. Challengers to the law have identified at least two Indiana voters who have infirmities that make it impossible for them to drive, according to The New York Times. They were prevented from casting ballots and having them counted after years of voting without difficulty.
Though the state set up a way for those without a license to obtain a photo ID, the process is complex, and eligible voters still can be denied. If, for example, a woman produces a birth certificate bearing her maiden name, rather than the married name under which she is registered to vote, she isn’t entitled to the identification. About 60 percent of those who have tried to get alternative IDs have been turned down, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Court.
To make their case before a court that is supposed to decide matters based on the facts and the law, Indiana and its supporters, including the Justice Department, invoke a compendium of allegations of this type of voter fraud or that. Facts seem to be notable for their absence.
I wrote more about this at the Big Cona couple of weeks ago. This is a big deal.
The Republicans are already doing everything they can to suppress the minority vote in the fall, and that means not just African Americans but Hispanics as well. This case will open the door for people like Mrs Huckabee to run roughshod over voters next fall:
October 19, 2004
MORE ON JANET HUCKABEE: NOT A GOOD PERSON?NOT TO MIMIC LYNNE CHENEY TOO MUCH, BUT IS JANET HUCKABEE a “good woman”?
This just over the wire from someone who observed Huckabee’s behavior yesterday. I have confirmed that this individual was in a position to observe the Arkansas first lady as she did her ‘civic duty,’ but I need to keep the individual’s identity concealed to protect her/him from the wrath of the Arkansas First Lady’s office.
Steve,
Her rudeness, combined with her position of prominence, infuriated many of the minority voters who voted that day.
Intimidation may or may not have been her intent, but intimidation definitely has been the EFFECT in the neighborhood and throughout Little Rock. Complaints from voters who haven’t even voted yet have been rolling in. I mean, imagine a minority voter who might be concerned about voting and initimidation to begin with, and then to go in the precinct to find the Republican Governor’s wife working as a poll worker and telling you incorrect information about the law, and in a rude manner.
H/T to BB
.