In a 10:15 EDT post today at CNN.com, producer Bill Mears noted the 6-3 ruling by the Supreme Court upholding an Indiana law requiring photo ID in order to vote. Yet Mears left out that Democrats who challenged the law were unable to produce a single voter who could prove he or she was unable to vote due to the law nor did Mears point out mechanisms the Indiana law has in place for provisional balloting and free voter ID cards.
Here's Mears's four-paragraph blog post at the CNN Political Ticker:
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court on Monday backed Indiana's law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns thousands of elderly, poor, and minority voters could be locked out of their right to cast ballots.
The 6-3 vote allows Indiana to require the identification when it holds its statewide primary next month.
At issue is whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud end up disenfranchising large groups of Americans who might lack proper documents to prove they are eligible to vote.
The justices wrestled with a balancing test of sorts to ensure both state and individual voter interests were addressed, in what has become a highly partisan legal and political fight.
But as Los Angeles Times staffer David G. Savage noted in his April 28 article:
[T]he Democrats who sued to block Indiana's law in 2005 did not name a single plaintiff who had been barred from voting because of the law. And that failure doomed the legal challenge.
What's more as the AP's Mark Sherman noted in an updated article*, Indiana takes care to ensure everyone who wants to vote can vote:
Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.
For more NB coverage of Bill Mears's bias, check here.
*I earlier blogged about Sherman's initial article, released shortly after the Court's ruling was announced. Sherman's updated article, posted shortly after 11:30 a.m. EDT, has more information.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Simlar to Patriot Act
April 28, 2008 - 13:05 ET by exLibI find the failure of Democrats to find a single person who couldn't vote for not having an id similar to all those on the left screaming about all the civil liberties the Bush Admin has taken away from people.
Whenever someone says this I always ask, "Do you know anyone who's been even ticketed, arrested or detained for anything?" It's always "No, but I heard...."
Also, on C-Span once they were grilling some woman who was the attourney for the Supreme's case regarding Partial-birth abortion. The reporter asked had there EVER been a case where the mother's life was in danger and there HAD to be an abortion, and they said NO.
People Who Cannot Vote
April 28, 2008 - 13:14 ET by allanfThere should be people who cannot vote. People intent on committing fraud. Without a Voter ID law, dead voters can rise from the grave.
The Indiana law requires identification. Only a person intent on fraud or determined not to live in the world would not want to produce identification.
The law wisely allows those without ID to cast a provisional ballot. They must then travel to the county seat to produce identification or sign an affidavit as to their identity. The importance of the delay was not grasped by the Court. It gives the Board of Elections time to determine if the voter is a "dead" person or some other fraud is being perpertrated.
Exactly right
April 28, 2008 - 13:18 ET by exLibThe whole purpose who NOT wanting ID is so that fraud CAN be committed.
ID's at not hard to get. The poor, the blind, the lame is the usual democrats hiding behind people, like when terrorist use human shields. No real concern for them is intended, instead it's to get sympathy.
Sheesh
April 28, 2008 - 13:23 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsIn this day and age, anyone who doesn't have photo ID is either a minor, a criminal, or just plain 'lost'. Show me a senior citizen or minority who ever had the need for a photo ID stop them from buying a pack of smokes, a bottle of booze, or a cell phone.
It's so easy a caveman could do it.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
ID's
April 28, 2008 - 13:32 ET by JDWEver heard of LifeLock?
ID theft is the fastest growing crime in our country.
Our police officials have other responsibilities. How could they possibility protect credit fraud?
The cards are free, how can anyone conclude this decision imposes excessive burdens on any class let alone infringes on their rights?
JDW
Sen Clinton: Distinguished Founder of Media Matters
Glad The Supremes Spoke
April 28, 2008 - 13:44 ET by geoff.galeThis decision is long overdue and it's sad that the court was as split as it was. The case had no merit from the start. Court cases based on "coulda, woulda, shoulda" are as lame as excuses based on "coulda, woulda, shoulda" are in personal life.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Here's the way the story should have been written
April 28, 2008 - 13:59 ET by mikejThe SCOTUS voted 6-3 to uphold the Indiana Voter ID law as Constitutional and common sense. Only the insipid David Souter and the two lock-step, brain dead socialist stooges Bill Clinton put on the court did their usual attempt to aid democrats. Other states with similar laws being challenged by democrats can now procede in requiring all voters supply a valid photo ID prior to voting.
I was tickled pink to hear
April 28, 2008 - 14:04 ET by bigtimerI was tickled pink to hear this early this morning...they can attempt to spin it any way the want in the press or msm, I have already heard of some attempts...this ought to tell the other leftists from other states whats what.
Sad this even ever had to go to court!
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Coughing up an ID
April 28, 2008 - 15:04 ET by nkviking75"The Supreme Court on Monday backed Indiana's law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns thousands of elderly, poor, and minority voters could be locked out of their right to cast ballots."
So how do these people buy any cough medicine with pseudoephedrine in it?
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Not News
April 28, 2008 - 15:26 ET by LionKingLIEberals and facts just do not go together.
What happened to the "Fractured Court" description?....
April 28, 2008 - 16:24 ET by jazbo...when describing the 6-3 decision. Too obviously biased even for the MSM?
In any case, it's been removed from the article.
Those who beleive in nothing will believe anything.
Justice Stevens
April 28, 2008 - 17:29 ET by easygoerChief Justice Roberts could have written the opinion himself. That he assigned it to Justice Stevens must drive the left nuts.
Another court case decided correctly!
April 28, 2008 - 20:55 ET by pbthinkerFor all those people complaining about McCain and the ones that are happy with themselves for staying home, in 2006, and giving the Democrats the power, I hope this wakes you up.
We are so close to having a common sense court for decades to come and conservatives are willing to sacrifice that, heads up, the court can make us all miserable, with the wrong people there.
Now, what does this say about the phoney democrats? They are so wrong on these issues how can "moderates" support them. It's obvious the Democrats can't win on their own, so those swing voters see something they like. I hope the Republican leadership is taking this election seriously. The Democrats are trying really hard to hand it to us, but we have to play our hand correctly. Are they up to it?
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.