Opinions on Voter I.D. laws run down party lines

The Supreme Court officially decided to hear an Indiana case against voter identification laws on Tuesday, September 25th. The case will be examined in January 2008, and should be resolved by the summer of 2008, with plenty of time before the 2008 Presidential Election. Since the controversial Florida presidential election results in 2000, over 20 states require a valid form of identification, such as a driver's license. This is a far cry from the basic laws that require only the voter's signature.

However, support for these laws is split down party lines. Democrats are the harshest critics of these laws, citing that they deny underprivileged,and elderly Americans who do not have a valid driver's license their constitutional right to vote. They have also implied that republicans are using these laws as a way of blocking votes for democrats. This is due to the idea that those who cannot afford photo i.d.'s are more likely to vote for a democratic candidate. Most republicans refute claims that these laws will deny anyone their constitutional rights. Also stating that these laws are necessary to deter any possible voter fraud, and to protect the democratic process.

The New York Times reported that this divide by party affiliation is shown in the appeals court decision which was 2 to 1 in favor of these laws. The 2 votes for the i.d. laws were republican appointees and the 1 vote against it was a democratic appointee. Hopefully, such partisan conflicts between judges will be put aside in January, and settled fairly by the supreme court.