Can of ACORN

The very serious John Danforth and Warren Rudman held a press event at the National Press Club today to stoke the fears of "voter fraud", absent any proof but lots of innuendo.

The controversy goes to revelations in recent days that canvassers for ACORN, a community organizing group, have turned in large numbers of fraudulent voter registration forms, including some where a potential voter has registered multiple times. Others include the names of cartoon characters and the Dallas Cowboys football team. The Republican Party and supporters of McCain say that Obama has several ties to ACORN, whose acronym stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

Rudman said that he and Danforth are not accusing ACORN's leaders of wrong-doing. In Cuyahoga County and elsewhere, the problem has been blamed largely on people paid by ACORN to register new voters. With quotas to fill, they have used such tactics as offering money and cigarettes to people who signed multiple registration cards, according to testimony in Cleveland yesterday.

Obama should ask ACORN to stop employing people with criminal records, the pro-McCain former senators said today.

Democrats and some voting officials have said that systems already exist to catch fraudulent voters, including requirements for voters to show identification. But Danforth and Rudman said the systems rely on human judgment.

The fraudulent registrations, they said, create potential for people voting who should not; for people voting more than once, and for election officials to have to spend so much time on this that they cannot prepare properly for an orderly election on Nov. 4. The spread of absentee voting in this election makes the chances of fraudulent voting greater, they said.

"When you swamp a system with many, many fraudulent names, you're creating a problem," Danforth said.

This is a ridiculous controversy. People named Mickey Mouse don't show up to vote. The problem with having Mickey Mouse on the voter rolls, which would never happen anyway considering that ACORN FLAGS THE SUSPECT REGISTRATIONS THEMSELVES, is exactly nothing. Nobody shows up, nothing happens. There are simply no credible accounts of widespread voter fraud. It's a problem in search of an example.

This of course hasn't stopped the right from their pathetic shrieking that somehow, Mickey Mouse is going to vote 150,000 times and steal the election. In Indiana the Republican Secretary of State, the guy who pushed through the onerous voter ID law, is investigating ACORN for voter fraud. A similar circumstance is happening in Ohio.

Faulty registrations are a minor problem, but as I've said before, Republicans don't want to fix that. Every year, right-wing ballot initiatives turn out HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faulty signatures, and yet this kind of furor never happens. They want a scapegoat out there.

The fact that John McCain stood with ACORN in 2006 is of no consequence to them.



ACORN is an organization that helps poor people and minorities, and in electoral politics, registers poor people to vote. You can imagine why that would be so threatening to Republicans.

UPDATE: Fox News has taken this to a ridiculous level.

The Very Best Hires

I was very pleased to see this yesterday.

Obama for America
Dear --

Help Protect the Vote Real change only happens when new people enter the political process and make their voices heard.

That's why this campaign is launching an unprecedented Voter Protection Program that will fight to promote and defend the voting rights of every American.

Attorneys, law students, and those with legal expertise will be essential in making sure every eligible citizen who wants to vote can vote -- and that their vote is counted.

Find out how you can lend your skills to make sure every voice is heard in this election:

http://my.barackobama.com/VoterProtection

It looks like a 50-state effort that is starting earlier than for any other previous Presidential campaign.

They'd better be ready. It's very clear that voter suppression and intimidation is baked into the cake of Republican electoral strategy. Sen. Obama is in Indiana today and considers that a swing state, yet this is the state with the restrictive voter ID law that the Supreme Court rubber-stamped this year, leading to nuns in their 90s being turned away from the polls. Yesterday there were a series of primary elections around the country, and in Missouri a man was arrested for trying to vote. They don't require a state-issued ID like a driver's license to vote, but the election judges apparently haven't gotten the memo.

So this morning I walked into my precinct at about 9:45AM, along with my son. Both of us were carrying Precinct issued voter cards, bank statements and utility statements, all of which are acceptable forms of ID in Missouri. The precinct is in the basement of a church and there are two precincts there: 08A and 08C. As I walked in, there were a total of six persons. Three for each precinct [...]

The first judge was named Leroy (he would tell em his last name) and he asked for our IDs and was handed the precinct-issued cards. He left them sitting on the table and said, "You need to show me IDs with your signatures on it!", in rough, angry tone.

I replied, "No sir, I do not." and handed him a computer copy of the SoS's web page, printed from this location. http://www.sos.mo.gov/... / The judge did not even look at it, instead standing straight up from his chair, raising his voice loudly, and said, "If you don't want to vote, there is the door, and you can leave now!"

My reply was, "Sir, we do want to vote. My son and I have both brought the proper ID, and the Sos"s sheet verifies that. Now, if you are refusing to let us vote, please tell us why." And the reply was, "I need to see your signature!"

(Now bear in mind, the next step in the voting is to actually sign the Poll Book, at which time judges can look at my signature all they want. But what was being demanded was some ID which was already signed. Then it dawned on me that many people would only have signatures on some government-issued IDs, such as Driver's Licenses.
Compliance with such demands would result in voters having to show Photo Voter IDs without even the need of the GOP-controlled Missouri Legislature having to pass another Photo Voter ID Act. In effect, causing Missouri voters to comply with conditions which had been declared unconstitutional in 2006!)

With the sudden realization of what was probably happening,I had to make a decision. Glancing around the room, I realized that I had seen all of these election judges at past elections. What was the likelihood of them all being untrained, or them all having forgotten what the rules were in the prior election. I calculated the odds were long.

I turned back to Leroy and replied, "Leroy, my son and I want to vote. We brought what was required of us. I am holding the SoS's web page n my left hand. If you will not look at it, or read it, please call Charlene Davis at the Eastern Jackson County Election Board, or call the SoS's office to find out what you are supposed to do. Because we want to vote."

We were then told, "You can either give me what I told you to, or you can just get out that door and find someplace else to vote!" (as he stood towering above my son and I). I looked him in the eye and said, "Leroy, Nope! We will not leave until you give us our rights. We've a right to vote!"

Leroy leaned over the table and shouted, "Not unless you follow our rules here!" To which I replied, "Your rules do not trump the laws of this state! Please read them! This ID card (the precinct-issued card) is all I need. And slapped the card down on the table in front of him. "this is all that is required."

In the next moment an election judge moved toward me from my left and called to me, causing me to turn ninety degrees to my left to face him. I am fairly certain that it was the same judge who had insisted on my photo ID in February. Regardless, as I turned, the man continued walking up to me until he gave me a "Chest Bump" (like players or managers do to umpires in baseball games), and said "You either do what you're told to vote, or you get out of here NOW!"

I was beginning to feel like Alice, when she fell through the Looking Glass, but managed to ask, "And you going to evict me? Call the police?"

ASt that point, Leroy pick up the converstaion and said, "You leave right now!". I replied, "If you won't call your Election Board, I will." and pulled my cell phone from my pocket. I turned to my son and asked himn to take his cell phone and call "Election Protection" at the Missouri SoS's Office.

As we both dialed, Leroy shouted for us to leave the building immediately, and I replied, "Sorry. Can't do that. What you are asking is neither legal or fair. Let's settle this thing." And as my son and I were talking to our respective parties, Leroy also made a call... to the Eastern Jackson County Election Board.

As my son spoke to the SoS's office, I was asking for the GOP BoE head, Charlene Davis. Oddly enough, she was not available.

But Leroy did manage to get through to the Election Board, as Independence, Missouri, Police Officers entered the precinct doors. One of the last things that Leroy was heard to say to the Election Board was "Then we don't get the signatures??"

My son and I were grabbed by the arms and escorted outside. The two policemen who escorted us were soon joined by four others with two other squad cars. Surrounded, we were peppered by questions. Basically they were of the type, "Why are you bothering these people?"

The answer, as clear as we could make it was, "We aren't bothering them! We are simply trying to vote, and these people are breaking Missouri State Statutes, preventing us from voting."

The police responded, "Look, you are breaking their rules. If you don't get out of here, we are going to arrest you!"

The question I had in response was, "Their rules? What rules? Those are employees of the Election Board, they are under the mandate of the Election Board, and then the SoS. Aren't you more concerned about the breaking of state laws?" As it turns out, apparently they were not.

This guy was obviously testing the limits of the system, but in the end it merited him an arrest. And he actually knew the rules.

The elections process is extremely fragile and ruled by local boards and pollworkers who aren't always in possession of the facts. Add on top of that the institutional barriers to voting, with long lines in poor and urban precincts, and the more devious tricks beyond ID laws, like voter caging, etc., and the Obama campaign has a major task ahead of them. This won't show up on any poll or projection, but getting out in front of election protection is absolutely worth a point or two.

I urge any lawyer reading this to pitch in.

Not Just An Old Election Problem

A lot of people are talking about these allegations about Karl Rove's role in stealing Ohio in 2004. Certainly worth paying attention to and following up. It's just as important to note that the right is not only continuing these tactics, but mainstreaming them.

At a little remarked-upon hearing this week, Rep. Keith Ellison grilled liberal blogdom's favorite punching bag Hans von Spakovsky over the voter ID laws he championed which led to disenfranchisement a couple months ago in Indiana:

ELLISON: Now here's something that happened on the May 7th Indiana election. A dozen nuns and another unknown number of students were turned away from the polls Tuesday in the first use of Indiana's stringent voter ID law since it was upheld last week by the United State Supreme Court. Mr. von Spakovsky, you wanna stop nuns from voting?

VON SPAKOVSKY: [silence]

ELLISON: Why don't you want nuns to vote, Mr. von Spakovsky?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Congressman Ellison, uh-

ELLISON: I'm just curious to know.

VON SPAKOVSKY: Those individuals, uh, were told, were- knew that they had to get an ID, they could have easily done so. They could have voted, uh, by absentee ballot- uh, nursing homes under the law are able to get-

ELLISON: ...Mr. von Spakovsky, are you aware that a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a-

VON SPAKOVSKY: They all had passports-

ELLISON: Excuse me.

VON SPAKOVSKY: They had expired passports which meant that they could have gotten-

ELLISON: Mr. von Spakovsky, do you know a 98-year old nun was turned away from the polls by a sister who's in her order and who knew her, but had to turn her away because she didn't have a government-issued ID? That's okay with you?

VON SPAKOVSKY: Yes...

Okay with him? It's his most fervent dreams realized!

Ellison didn't let up there. He asked von Spakovsky pointedly about the greatest hits of US Attorney/voter fraud cases in Minnesota (where US Atty Thomas Heffelfinger was fired for ignoring voter fraud claims) and Missouri (the infamous Bradley Schlozman prosecution over a separate voter fraud case involving ACORN). Ellison basically accused him of lying to the committee and von Spakovsky became indignant. This guy was on the Federal Election Commission, just to let you know how far these completely bogus charges have progressed into the mainstream.

This voting stuff isn't going away, and if anything it's going to get more intense as Republicans get more desperate. I can't believe that this article didn't get more attention when it came out a few weeks ago. There's no question that this will became an enormous issue literally out of nowhere this fall.

Election officials worry that the state's home foreclosure problem will pose a problem this November for voters still registered at their former address, a newspaper reported Sunday.

Voters in pivotal Ohio with outdated addresses face possible pre-election challenges and trips to multiple polling places. They also are more likely to cast provisional ballots that might not be counted.

"It's a real issue," said Daniel Tokaji, an Ohio State University law professor who specializes in elections. He wonders whether foreclosures might explain the increasing percentages of provisional votes cast between 2004 and Ohio's latest election, the presidential primary in March.

Ohio provided President Bush with an 118,000-vote victory in 2004, giving him the electoral votes he needed to win the election.

All of a sudden you're going to hear that these families forced out of their homes and relocated across the country are actually fraudsters trying to steal the election for Obama. The very fact of vacancy at the addresses where these people are registered makes hundreds of thousands of people prime suspects for voter caging. And you can be sure that re-registering isn't paramount on their minds, either. In battleground states like Nevada, one out of every 120 or so homes is in foreclosure right now. This seems like a huge under-the-radar issue that is receiving literally no attention.

And there's a nexus here between these potential minefields and the voter ID laws conservatives are pushing.

Ohio's requirement that voters show identification at the polls makes it more important that they keep their registration information current, said Jeff Ortega, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, Ohio's elections chief.

In 2004, the Ohio Republican Party challenged more than 31,000 newly registered voters statewide after letters it mailed out came back as undeliverable. The challenges failed, but Brunner said a new state law requiring counties to mail their own notices to all registered voters could lead to another round of pre-election challenges.

There may be plenty of illegal disenfranchisement, but is anybody paying attention to the legal version?

Meet The Devious, Corrupt, Scheming Face Of Voter Fraud

Meet The Devious, Corrupt, Scheming Face Of Voter Fraud

by dday

It's a 97 year-old woman who has voted in every election since 1932.



Whew! Did we ever dodge a bullet forcing this lady to admit she didn't have a birth certificate. Fraudster! Sure, she claims they weren't issued in Kentucky in 1910 where she was born, as if we can believe a known cheat.

Her and the other 40,000 whose voter registration cards have been rejected in Arizona can just sit on the sidelines while the real Americans vote this November. Our democracy is on the verge of collapse from this terrible scourge of voter fraud. I mean, nobody can find any instances of it, but that's why it's so dangerous!

If we let all the 97 year-olds vote for President, the terrorists will have already won.

This Is My Favorite Week Ever

In the comments of my last post at Hullabaloo, Jemand von Niemand ran through some of the week's highlights.

On May 15th, the Senate cast a near-unanimous vote to reverse the Federal Communication Commission's December 2007 decision to let media companies own both a major TV or radio station and a major daily newspaper in the same city. (freepress.net)

On May 16th... Bush used a private visit to King Abdullah’s ranch here Friday to make a second attempt to persuade the Saudi government to increase oil production and was rebuffed yet again. (NYT)

The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage on May 15th ... invalidat[ing] virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. (LA Times)

On May 14th, about 100 House Republicans refused to vote for more war funding, voting 'present'... Democrats were able to increase their 'no' vote number on funding from 141 to 149; the bill failed...

Finally the GI bill passed with overwhelming margin of 256 votes in the House, including 32 Republicans... This might actually be the most remarkable piece of the votes today; conservative Democrats agreeing to raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for educational benefits for veterans. (Matt Stoller)

On May 16th, Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who never had Democratic support to win confirmation, withdrew his nomination on Friday. Bush "reluctantly accepted" von Spakovsky's request, the White House said. (sfgate.com)

Hell of a week, huh, Bootsie? And there are thirty more to come.

Not even a mention of Travis Childers' win in a Mississippi House seat that has caused Republicans to despair of a landslide loss in the fall.

Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia and former leader of his party’s Congressional campaign committee, issued a dire warning that the Republican Party had been severely damaged, in no small part because of its identification with President Bush. Mr. Davis said that, unless Republican candidates changed course, they could lose 20 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.

“They are canaries in the coal mine, warning of far greater losses in the fall, if steps are not taken to remedy the current climate,” Mr. Davis said in a memorandum. “The political atmosphere facing House Republicans this November is the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than it was in 2006.”

And let me give you another one to add to the list. Remember that Missouri voter ID scheme that Digby wrote about earlier in the week? Turns out the State Senate refused to consider it.

In a victory for all voters, Missouri lawmakers ended this year’s legislative session without a final vote on legislation that could have prevented up to 240,000 Missourians from voting. The proposed change would have altered Missouri’s constitution, allowing for strict citizenship and government-issued photo ID requirements that would make Missouri one of the toughest states in the country for eligible, law-abiding citizens to register to vote or cast a ballot.

“I am relieved that I will be able to vote this fall,” said Lillie Lewis, a St. Louis city resident, “I’ve been voting in every election since I can remember, but if I needed my birth certificate, that would be the end of that. I hope this is the last we hear of this nonsense.” Lillie Lewis was born in Mississippi, but the state sent her a letter stating they have no record of her birth.

Birdell Owen, a Missouri resident who was displaced by hurricane Katrina, also voiced her relief. “I should be able to participate in my democracy,” she said, “even if Louisiana can’t get me a copy of my birth certificate. I’m glad Missouri politicians had the sense to protect my right to vote.”

Oh, and Series of Tubes Ted Stevens might lose his Senate seat after 50-odd years.

We're seeing an entire political party's collapse happen before our eyes, and in many of these cases a strong citizen-led movement, aided by leadership in the political sphere, has been decisive. There are two things at work here. One, you have a conservative movement that has been horrible for the country and created all these terrible policies which have made us less safe, less economically secure, and weakened in the eyes of the world. And you have a vibrant progressive movement that has been able to broadcast these failures widely. Consider what we've learned in the last month or so:

• The Defense Department embedded "military analysts" as propaganda engines inside US media with the full knowledge of the White House, mainlining the Pentagon message directly to the public with the imprimatur of independent media voices.

• The politicized show trials scheduled to crop up at Guantanamo during the fall election have been delayed because of the amount of perversions of justice employed by interrogators. The top DoD adviser to military commissions has been barred from participating in them because of evidence of bias, and one detainee had his charges dropped because torture was used (authorized by the Secretary of Defense), making the testimony inadmissable. Meanwhile the US is planning a huge new prison in Afghanistan, suggesting that indefinite detentions of masses of prisoners will continue.

• Domestic spying in the United States has spiked at a time when actual terrorism prosecutions have decreased, a massive violation of citizen privacy with no material benefit in stopping crime.

• The US government routinely injects psychotropic drugs into detainees to keep them sedated during deportation flights. , in violation of international human rights standards.

• An official at the VA told his staffers to stop diagnosing returning soldiers with PTSD, in an attempt to lower the costs of permanent disability payments. Many leaders in Washington, including Sen. Obama, are demanding an investigation.

The Republicans are wasting away because of more than just bad branding. It's because over the last eight years they've taken the country we know and done something terrible to it. And despite media blackouts and whitewashes, Americans intuitively know this, and are reaching to alternative media sources to discover more. The historically high wrong-track numbers have a basis in economic struggles, but I believe just as much in this loss of faith in what we've become as a country in the Age of Bush. And no amount of cajoling or re-branding is going to lure people back to the GOP. Not this year. Not after all this.

It's going to take years to repair the damage, and the Republicans will be all too happy to sabotage those efforts as the opposition and pin the blame on their opponents. It's what they do. For now, however, it's time to bask in the glow of the demise of the Republican Party, and work very hard to restore America's trust in their government and the ability to move forward.

Nuns

The primary results from Indiana and North Carolina should be pretty much projected by 8:00ET or so (and to me, it looks like a split, although Indiana looks to me like it'll be closer). But we already know who's won, at least in Indiana - voter suppression advocates like the 9 robed figures on the Supreme Court.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."

This is merely the one story that's been reported. You have to expect there are many more; in fact there are several more later in the story. Of course, the Scalia-Thomas-Alito-Roberts faction on the Court will tell you that's just the price we have to pay for dealing with the scourge of non-existent voter fraud.

Today's vote was kind of a test market for the fall. There's high turnout throughout the state anyway so I don't expect this aspect of the vote to be widely reported.

...a group of voting rights advocates that established a separate hot line reported receiving several calls from would-be voters who were turned away at precincts because they did not have a state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

One newly married woman said she was told she couldn't vote because her driver's license name didn't match the one on her voter registration record, said Myrna Perez of the Brennan Center Justice at New York University's law school, coordinator of the 1-866-OUR-VOTE hot line. Another woman said she was turned away from casting her first-ever ballot because she had only a college-issued ID card and an out-of-state driver's license, Perez said.

"These laws are confusing. People don't know how they're supposed to be applied," she said.

In case you're interested in continuing the mentality that allows voter suppression to be codified into law, there is a Presidential candidate that's right for you.

Here’s what McCain was really telling the party base: If you liked George W. Bush’s nominees, you’re going to love the judges John McCain will put on the bench.

McCain also touted his support for the so-called Gang of 14 as a supposed sign of moderation. But the fact is that he has voted to give lifetime jobs as federal judges to every one of President Bush’s most dangerous and damaging nominees. And they’re already eroding individual rights and legal protections. We’re all going to be living with the consequences of those votes for a long, long time.

The two Supreme Court justices nominated by President Bush are already making it harder for workers mistreated on the job to get justice. They’re letting politicians get away with making it harder for some people to vote. They’re redefining our Constitution and laws to erode progress on women’s rights, educational opportunity, environmental protections, and more.

We all know that a vote for McCain is a vote against women's reproductive rights, a vote against consumer rights, a vote against worker rights, and a vote for massive corporate power under the law. And we know that the Republicans aren't able to win legitimately, so laws like Indiana's will be replicated wherever possible in an attempt to game the system. In a sense awareness is a powerful way to counteract this - sunlight is the best disinfectant. At the same time part of me believes that the vote margin in November needs to be higher than the last two elections in order to get a result in line with the will of the people. But this is not a cause for despair, but a clarion call to get to work right now.

Counterpunch

This is the best way to deal with that awful Supreme Court decision on voter ID.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representative Keith Ellison (D-MN) are introducing legislation to help more Americans register to vote by allowing Election Day registration at polling places for all federal elections. The Election Day Registration Act addresses chronic problems with the American electoral process – low voter turnout and archaic voter registration laws. Election Day registration is also seen as preferable to advance registration since voters are actually present when they register, reducing opportunities for fraud. The bill’s introduction comes days after the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law that seriously impedes the ability of elderly and low-income Americans to vote. Senators Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Jon Tester (D-MT), who represent states that recently enacted Election Day registration, are also cosponsors of the bill.

Same-day registration ought to be a core election rights value. It raises turnout in every state where it's tried, it encourages new voters to get involved, and as the Minnesota Secretary of State notes it's far more secure:

Allowing Election Day registration can also address concerns about potential voter fraud. Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has called Election Day registration a “no brainer” and has said it is more secure than advance registration because “you have the person right in front of you – not a postcard in the mail.”

Minnesota and Wisconsin have been running their elections this way for over 30 years. Same-day registration states beat their counterparts in turnout by 16 points (70-54) in the 2004 election.

Now, this wouldn't cure everything enshrined in that SCOTUS ruling - you'd still need some form of ID to present at the polls under Indiana's law, for example - but it eliminates all of the barriers to entry associated with registration, and it allows voter registration and mobilization activists to focus in the states on free ID programs and expanding access to photo IDs in underserved communities. The end result would be positive for our democracy, increasing participation and giving voice to everyone who wants it.

I think this should be a legislative goal as soon as possible.

About That Voter Registration Drive

It had better come with a trip to the DMV:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to deter fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush.

Stevens actually wrote one of the majority opinions in this one, in addition to the conservative bloc and Kennedy joining the ruling.

This is, as we know, a solution in search of a problem. Voter fraud is a made-up conservative issue, backed by no evidence. While Stevens suggested that there are no "excessively burdensome requirements" imposed on voters who must show ID at the polls, he's answering an unknowable question. We simply have no idea how photo ID centers (if there will be any outside the DMV) in Indiana or anywhere else would be managed, whether the same groups that truck elderly and poor voters to the polls on Election Day will be able to do the same to get people their IDs, and so on. If they require the same documentation that the DMV does, many poor and elderly people simply don't have them. If it requires an application fee, how is that not a poll tax?

Justice Scalia's broader ruling shows exactly what Republicans want out of this:

Scalia, favoring a broader ruling in defense of voter ID laws, said, "The universally applicable requirements of Indiana's voter-identification law are eminently reasonable. The burden of acquiring, possessing and showing a free photo identification is simply not severe, because it does not 'even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.'"

But during the arguments, Scalia conceded that such laws would "inconvenience... a small number of people," and the Solicitor General for the state of Indiana actually said that "an infinitesimal portion of the electorate could even be, conceivably be, burdened by" the ID law.

You know, that's how the 14th Amendment WORKS, with equal protection for all, even that "infinitesimal portion of the electorate". And, as Amanda Terkel notes, that's a major soft-pedal of the impact:

Voter ID laws, however, affect more than an "infinitesimal" number of Americans and are more than a "minor inconvenience." According to the federal government, there are as many as 21 million voting-age Americans without driver's licenses. In Indiana, 13 percent of registered voters lack the documents needed to obtain a license, and therefore, cast a ballot. These restrictions disproportionately hit low-income, minority, handicapped, and elderly voters the hardest, leading to lower levels of voter participation.

Those affected also tend to vote Democratic, which may explain why Karl Rove and his colleagues have pursued so-called voter fraud with such zeal. Several U.S. attorneys ousted in the Bush administration's infamous prosecutor purge even alleged that they were fired because they refused to aggressively prosecute baseless voter fraud claims.

Considering that we have at least one Democratic campaign predicated on bringing new voters to the process, this is an incredibly calamitous outcome that could upset the entire effort. Somebody in the Obama campaign had better get out in front of this; the courts are already stacked against them.

UPDATE: I found the part of the majority opinion referring to whether or not there's an application fee for a driver's license. Part of this is unbelievable (emphasis mine):

(c) The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. 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, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. 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—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 clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.

See, they can just cast provisional ballots! And we all know that every single one of those are counted.

UPDATE II: These Democrats registering in record numbers might all have to re-register or obtain their ID cards before registering or any number of shenanigans in states where the election apparatus is controlled by Republicans. There are fortunately less of them now (Ohio, for example is safely in Democratic hands), but the precedent here is really, really bad.

UPDATE III: Publius at Obsidian Wings has an interesting take on why Stevens joined this opinion.

But that leads back to Justice Stevens. Whatever else you might think about him, Stevens is the most politically savvy Justice. My take is that Stevens knew it was a lost cause — Kennedy must have signaled that he would uphold the law. Thus, Stevens managed to maintain the viability of more narrow “as applied” challenges by upholding the law on more narrow grounds.

In other words, Scalia and pals would have shut down all possible challenges if they could have had a 5-4 opinion all to themselves. By picking off Roberts and Kennedy, Stevens maintained the ability of plaintiffs to bring “as applied” challenges. Or to be more cynical, he kicked the can down the road hoping for a better Court in the future.

That sounds right to me. Kennedy tipped his hand on joining the conservative bloc when the case was argued. The loss of "facial challenges" in this case is disturbing because it would be far more difficult for these "as applied" challenges to result in an actual change in votes. But it offers a small sliver of hope for the future.

An Evening With Debra Bowen In Downtown LA

Last night I was fortunate enough to be present at a small-group discussion with Secretary of State Debra Bowen hosted by the California League of Conservation Voters. Despite this being a hectic time for the Secretary of State (E-12, in her parlance), she took a couple hours to fill us in on efforts leading up to this year of three separate elections.

In the final two weeks for voters to be eligible for the February 5 primary, there was a surge of registration. At a "midnight registration drive" in Sacramento, over 1,500 citizens registered to vote in one day (sadly, registrars in places like Los Angeles County resisted efforts to do the same because it would be "inconvenient" for them to update their voter rolls). While she had no prediction on turnout in the primary, Bowen was confident that there will be a lot of excitement and potentially a good turnout. One drawback is the fact that decline-to-state voters have to opt-in to receive a ballot for the Democratic primary (they are shut out from the Republican primary). When I asked Bowen about this, she replied that counties are required to actually notify DTS voters of their rights, and that some precinct locations will have signage notifying them to that end, but that this is insufficient and her hands are tied by state law to some extent. The parties who want to welcome DTS voters into their primary have a big role to play in this. The Democratic Party, if they want to expand their base, should make a legitimate effort to let DTS voters know they can vote in the primary. It will have the effect of getting them in the habit of voting Democratic and give them a stake in the party. There are also legislative reforms, regarding mandatory signage inside the polling place, changes to the vote-by-mail process (nonpartisan voters must request a partisan ballot), that can be taken.

Bowen's great achievements since taking over the Secretary of State's office include an insistence on voter security, and outreach to young voters. On the security front, despite the howls of protest from county registrars, Bowen will be limiting precincts to one touch-screen voting machine (for disabled voters) and will be undergoing increased security and auditing procedures. A lot of these measures will be behind the scenes, like delivering voting equipment in tamper-proof bags so that evidence of changes to the equipment will be obvious. And the auditing procedures, with an open testing process, may delay voting results, but are crucial to maintain confidence in the vote. A court recently ruled in favor of Bowen and against San Diego County in implementing these changes, but she expects an appeal. As Bowen said, "Since cavemen put black stones on one side and white stones on the other, people have tried to affect election results." But she is doing whatever possible to make sure those efforts will be supremely difficult in California. None of her provisions so far are slam-dunks; it's hard to create something foolproof, considering that memory cards for many machines can fit in your pocket, and so many machines are hackable. But Bowen is making an excellent start.

Bowen was cool to this idea of voter fraud, which has been pushed by conservatives for years. She described that there has only been one documented case of voter fraud in recent history, and that it's a high-work, low-reward strategy for cheating. Efforts to stop this non-existent problem include voter ID laws, expected to get a boost with the Supreme Court likely to allow the one in Indiana to go forward, despite Constitutional concerns. While Bowen deflected many attempts to get voter ID laws enacted in California while on the Elections Committee in the Senate, she believed that such attempts would never pass this Legislature.

As far as reaching out to young voters, we all know about Bowen's use of MySpace and Facebook to keep young voters informed (and yes, she also reads Calitics). But one measure she talked about last night struck me. On February 5, over 140,000 California high school students will engage in a mock election, featuring a Presidential primary and three mock ballot initiatives: 1) should the vehicle license fee be ties to auto emissions, 2) should voting be mandatory, and 3) should government do more to stop bullying on social networking sites. This is an ingenious way to get people interested and excited in politics at an early age, and sounds like a model program.

We have a long way to go on national election reform; Bowen noted that only three Secretaries of State (her, and the two in Ohio and Minnesota) agree that there needs to be a federal standard for national elections. What we need to do is elect more competent professionals like Debra Bowen and keep pushing the debate in the direction of reform and voter confidence.

Meanwhile, On The Court

Two major Supreme Court cases have been heard this week, and on each of them, it does not appear that the side of justice and the Constitution will be victorious. In the Kentucky case opposing the use of the lethal injection method in capital punishment, the conservative block was skeptical:

"This is an execution, not surgery," Justice Antonin Scalia told the attorney who was representing two Kentucky inmates who say the use of the three-drug compound poses "an unnecessary risk of pain" to the dying man.

"Where does that come from, that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain?" Scalia continued. "We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here."

Yes, where the hell does that come from, this idea that punishment should not be cruel or unusual? What first-year law student pulled that out of their ass?

So, it appears that we'll continue with a process that has been invalidated for the euthanizing of dogs.

In the other big case, the ruling on Indiana's voter ID law, the Court again appeared unswayed by arguments about equal protection and the deliberate efforts to suppress voter turnout.

Only two Justices — Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens — even hinted at the real-world fact that the photo ID law in Indiana is at the heart of a bitter, ongoing contest reaching well beyond Indiana. It is a dispute between Republicans worried over election fraud supposedly generated by Democrats to pad their votes, and Democrats worried over voter suppression supposedly promoted by Republicans to cut down their opposition. The abiding question at the end: can a decision be written that does not itself sound like a political, rather than a judicial, tract? Can the Court, in short, avoid at least the appearance of another Bush v. Gore? [...]

It was apparent from the outset that the Court’s more conservative members were most interested in (a) finding that no one had a right to bring the constitutional challenge, at least at this stage, (b) putting off a challenge until the law has actually been enforced or at least until just before election day, or (c) salvaging as much as possible of the Indiana photo ID requirement on the theory that voter fraud is a problem that states have a legitimate right to try to solve. There was some hand-wringing, particularly by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., over how difficult it is for a judge to “draw the line” on when a voting requirement would or would not pass a constitutional test [...]

In a notable way, therefore, it appeared that — once more — Justice Anthony M. Kennedy may hold the vote that controls the outcome. He displayed some skepticism about the challenge to Indiana’s law, somewhat impatiently suggesting at one point that the challengers would oppose any kind of voter ID requirement other than a simple signature match at the polling place. Kennedy seemed ultimately to be looking for ways to assure voters who demonstrably would be significantly burdened by the law that they could challenge it, perhaps even before election day came around.

Count me as not sanguine that Alito's handwringing will hold up. And Kennedy appears lost.

As has been said many times, this is a solution without a problem. The Indiana secretary of state, when pressed, could not come up with one documented instance of voter fraud in his state. Never has so much attention been paid to a crime that has not been proven to be committed. The agenda is as transparent as tissue paper.

These two cases reveal just how partisan, and really cowardly, the Court has become, as the arguments showed an unwillingness to engage on the Constitutional questions, while looking to uphold the rulings on narrower, more technical grounds. This has been the Roberts Court agenda since he rose to Chief Justice.

The revolution that many commentators predicted when President Bush appointed two ultra-right-wing Supreme Court justices is proceeding with breathtaking impatience, and it is a revolution Jacobin in its disdain for tradition and precedent. Bush's choices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, have joined the two previously most right-wing justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, in an unbreakable phalanx bent on remaking constitutional law by overruling, most often by stealth, the central constitutional doctrines that generations of past justices, conservative as well as liberal, had constructed.

That article by Ronald Dworkin is important. Go read it. (I'll be here.)

And let's be very clear about what each and every Republican candidate has said, with total unanimity, on the subject of judges.

Rudy Giuliani

"I will nominate strict constructionist judges with respect for the rule of law and a proven fidelity to the Constitution -- judges in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts."

Mitt Romney

"I think the justices that President Bush has appointed are exactly spot-on. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs."

Fred Thompson

"I like Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas. One of the best things that I got to do as a private citizen was to help get Justice Roberts through the confirmation process... We're in a heck of a lot better shape because of Roberts and Alito, and one more gain would put us in even better shape."

Mike Huckabee

"My own personal hero on the court is Scalia, not least because I duck-hunted with him."

John McCain

"One of our greatest problems in America today is justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges. I'm proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court. ... [When asked whether he admires any Supreme Court justice in particular] Of course, Antonin Scalia... I admire how articulate he is, but I also from everything I've seen admire Roberts as well."

The two parties have more than a dime's worth of difference on this, and the Supremes had better be right at the top of the issues that we talk about in the fall.

Not Like They'll Stop With The Voter Suppression

I know that Digby has done a lot of work on the coming Republican emphasis on bogus claims of "voter fraud," turning the tables on Democratic concerns about our elections and giving a pretense to increased voter suppression and intimidation. The Supreme Court is about to weigh in on some cases that are very central to this effort.

The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.

The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution? [...]

"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.

His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.

These cases are a solution in search of a problem. Indeed there have been virtually no credible documented cases of voter fraud almost everywhere in the country. This idea to institute this voter ID law came right out of the Justice Department and directly from the lead villian in these matters, the guy who but for 9 second pro forma Congressional sessions might be sitting on the Federal Election Commission by now.

(Hans) Von Spakovsky was the voting counsel in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division from 2003 to 2005. In that role, he supported Georgia's voter photo identification law despite the objections of four of the five government attorneys on a panel set up to make sure the Georgia law complied with the Voting Rights Act, who warned that the law would hurt minority voters because they were less likely to have photo IDs, according to former Justice Department officials. "Spakovsky played a major role in the implementation of practices which injected partisan political factors into decision making," said six former Justice staffers in a letter to senators.

Von Spakovsky, like other Republicans, argues that such strict voter ID laws are needed to combat fraud. Von Spakovsky's election administration experience includes sitting on the Fulton County Board of Registration and Elections, which administers elections in the largest county in Georgia.

The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School asserts that von Spakovsky's partisan bias extends beyond his signing off on the Georgia bill. Citing recently released E-mails, it says that he tried to quash the U.S. Election Assistance Commission's efforts to support voting ID rules in Arizona and tried to cancel a research contract on the impact of and need for voter ID. (He would not comment for this story.)

It's a real simple plan. The idea is to put these laws in place, under-report them to the populace, and use them to invalidate the votes of hundreds of thousands of low-income and elderly citizens, many of whom vote Democratic. All this to stop the "scourge" of non-existent incidents of voter fraud. Which is a fake scourge whipped up by the Republican noise machine and absolutely tied to this sudden demonization of illegal immigrants.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R) said voter fraud was something he was asked about "almost daily" by constituents. "At the Kiwanis Club, the chamber of commerce groups, people would say, 'Why aren't you asking who I am when I vote?' " Rokita said.

This, by the way, is why we must continue pressing for answers in the US Attorney probe. The firing of the eight federal prosecutors is intimately tied to their unwillingness to pursue B.S. vote fraud cases. If that investigation, and the look into who was giving the orders to fire, is pushed aside for the sake of bipartisan comity or a desire not to confront the President, then we'll never see the reality of the politicization of justice and the use of federal prosecutor offices as an arm of the RNC. Which will make it that much easier for these needless voter ID laws to be adopted nationwide, expanding the voter suppression.