Hooray for the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Indiana’s law requiring photo ID to cast a ballot was not unconstitutional but rather a valid method to prevent fraud.

Some excerpts from some of the online commentary today:

Photo Finish - Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook

…As Justice Antonin Scalia says in his concurring opinion, the Supreme Court is better off deferring to lawmakers and not getting wrapped up in the election law cases, which would only encourage more litigation. "It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustified overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class," writes Justice Scalia.

Voter ID laws don't discourage voting, but they do discourage fraud and increase voter confidence in the system. The Court's common sense ruling protects the public's belief that elections will be fair and honest.

A Victory Against Voter Fraud - John Fund

In ruling on the constitutionality of Indiana's voter ID law – the toughest in the nation – the Supreme Court had to deal with the claim that such laws demanded the strictest of scrutiny by courts, because they could disenfranchise voters. All nine Justices rejected that argument.

Even Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the three dissenters who would have overturned the Indiana law, wrote approvingly of the less severe ID laws of Georgia and Florida. The result is that state voter ID laws are now highly likely to pass constitutional muster.

But this case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, also revealed a fundamental philosophical conflict between two perspectives rooted in the machine politics of Chicago. Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the decision, grew up in Hyde Park, the city neighborhood where Sen. Barack Obama – the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws – lives now. Both men have seen how the Daley machine has governed the city for so many years, with a mix of patronage, contract favoritism and, where necessary, voter fraud.

…[Senator Obama’s position in opposition to voter ID laws] is far removed from Mr. Obama's call for transcending the partisan divide. Then again, Mr. Obama's relationship to reform has always been tenuous. Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, notes that, while Mr. Obama supported ethics reforms as a state senator, he has "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic."

So we have the irony of two liberal icons in sharp disagreement over yesterday's Supreme Court decision. Justice Stevens, the real reformer, believes voter ID laws are justified to prevent fraud. Barack Obama, the faux reformer, hauls out discredited rhetoric that they disenfranchise voters.

Michelle Malkin

The Supreme Court gives us more good news this morning: Indiana’s voter ID law has been upheld.

Half of the states have passed similar laws.

The race-mongers and open borders lobby will be in an uproar.

You may recall that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was, um, fraudulently registered to vote in two states.

D’oh.

La Shawn Barber

…I’m pleased the court understands that no matter who you are, what color, or how old, you’re expected to be a responsible, law-abiding citizen reasonably intelligent enough to get yourself down to the local DMV and obtain a driver’s license or non-driver’s license ID before you can vote.