Amazing that Barack Obama did so well in Indiana despite the Rev. Wright ‘scandal’. Despite Sen. Clinton, who I had respected for supporting the Million Mom March against gun violence, re-creating herself as a hard drinker and scourge of ducks everywhere. Despite a supreme court ruling that disenfranchised Indiana voters disproportionately Black, young, handicapped or elderly. This ruling came so late that there was no time for these citizens to obtain the state-issued, expensive, official I.D. card. What, no papers? Tough luck — no vote.
At least 10 retired nuns in South Bend, Indiana, were barred from voting in today’s Indiana Democratic primary election because they lacked photo IDs required under a state law that the supreme court upheld last week.
John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said several of the retired nuns had been voting all of their lives but were told they lacked the required identification cards and could only file provisional ballots.
Since 2005, Indiana’s toughest-in-the-nation law requires every voter to produce a state or federal photo ID card. The supreme court, after weighing scores of legal briefs from conservatives who backed the statute and liberals who opposed it, upheld the law by a 6-3 vote, saying there was little evidence that it was unduly burdensome for voters.
Borkowski said Sister Julie McGuire, one of several nuns on poll duty, wasn’t pleased to turn away the nuns, some of whom were in their 80s and 90s and no longer had driver’s licenses.
“Here’s the supreme irony,” Borkowski said. “This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana. Here you have a bunch of nuns whose votes can’t be accepted by a bunch of nuns … who live with them in the polling place in their convent because they don’t have an ID.”
At least six other people also were relegated to filing provisional ballots at the polling place on the ground floor of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross, said Amy Smessaert, a spokeswoman for the convent.
Among them was Lauren McCallick, an 18-year-old freshman at St Mary’s College in South Bend, who said she got “teary-eyed” and then angry at being rejected the first time she was old enough to vote.
“The nuns and this young woman are the face of the supreme court case,” said Jonah Goldman, who directs the Lawyers Committee’s Campaign for Fair Elections.
I have a strong suspicion that the nuns were going to vote for Hillary, but still. I’m glad I live in Rhode Island, where your signature counts.
Recurring Nightmare 
Indeed, Mr. Obama did amazingly well in Indiana. A separation of perhaps 20,000 votes in over a million cast is less than a significant number–it is virtually meaningless. I suspect given the proportional representation distribution of the Democrat Party delegate count, Obama will have about the same number of delegates awarded in Indiana as Ms Clinton. The North Carolina loss by Ms Clinton was truly devestating and a powerful endorsment of Mr. Obama as a candidate. More significantly, it may put an end (at least for the moment) to the millstone around Mr. Obama’s neck of Mr. Wright’s bizarre narrative of history and human relationships. Of course, Mr. Wright seems to have the determination to stay in the public eye and is resilient enough to shackle Mr. Obama with still more outrageous behavior.
However, it is likely that enough of the “Superdelegates” will now defect, and additional endorsements from notables will accrue to Mr. Obama. It is amazing that a political party that represents itself as “democratic” needs “special people” with votes that are “more special” than votes of ordinary people. One finds little that is democratic in the party of the same name. Similarly, one finds little interest in “repulicanism: in the party of Lincoln, and more concern with elites and fat cats. Perhaps we need a third alternative.
In effect, the Clinton machine has gotten rusty and “Billary” as an effective force may have come to an end. At last, no more blue or red pant suits on a candidate who imagines “snipers” taking aim at her vitals (is ths Freudian?). At last no more images of a red-faced, serial philanderer uttering nonsense that is mean spritited–Mr. Clinton can now focus that “excess energy” on seeking more donations from less than honorable foreign leaders and business interests for his foundation.
Finally, we are very near to the end of the disasterous Bush term as President. Historians will no doubt write lengthy tomes comparing Mr. Bush to the completley discredited term of office of Mr. Carter: “who was the worst President of history.” Fortunately Mr. Bush will likely slip easily back into his ranch, baseball and private life. He is not likely to have a “spill-over” effect such as that Mr. Carter and his “unusual” actions. Mr. Bush will not meet with terrorists, write bad books of poetry, or try and find a “life after President.”
LikeLike
WRONG!
The nuns and others weren’t prevented from voting because of the Supreme Court or the people running the polls. The nuns chose not to get IDs. They were prevented from voting by their own choices.
I have a challenge for everyone who is against voter ID requirements…
Name 1 government program for the poor or elderly that doesn’t require proof of eligibility.
~~~~~~
Each illegal vote cancels out a legitimate vote, so why don’t you care?
LikeLike
It would be marvelous if we lived in a world that played by our military academy rules, a universal honor code, where we can trust everyone’s word: “Yes, I do have a driving permit,” or “Yes, I am Horatio Smith,” or, “Indeed, I do have permission to carry a gun,” and, finally, “Of course I am Sister Angelica fo Our Lady of Lordes.” Unfortunately, the honor code only seems to work at the places they are least needed, where “Honor, Duty and Country,” still have substantive meaning. We are all annoyed by needing driver’s permits with ugly pictures of ourselves, or passports with even worse photos (or maybe we actually look that bad–I know I do). We produce these documents of identity so often that we forget: cashing a check, buying a TV, opening a bank account, getting on an airplane, etc. I must agree that one of the most important acts that we as Americans can perform, voting, should require positive proof of who we are. The right to vote carries two responsibilities; being informed and making sure we are who we claim to be.
LikeLike
I love it. R-Wingers who used to rant and rave about gov’t intrusion and jack-booted thugs and black helicopters now want to impose nit-picky rules to make the exercise of democracy more difficult.
People like Sir S would rather stick to stringent rules rather than allow something like, oh, common sense run the process. It doesn’t matter to sticklers for rules if the voters are personally known to the poll workers. No. The Rule has to be enforced, to the point of lunacy if necessary. Never mind that the nuns don’t drive. They got to have an ID. That’s the Rule.
Please note, everyone, that in issuing its ruling, the Surpreme Court admitted that there is virtually no–as in none, nada, zilch–evidence that voter fraud is a problem.
The proponents of voter ID laws have never been able to demonstrate the need for such a law to prevent voter fraud. Why not? Because it’s not happening on any kind of scale.
So we’re making the exercise of democracy difficult for people to correct a “problem” that doesn’t exist.
Yup. Sure makes sense to me.
LikeLike
in answer to Donald Wolberg, the kind of ID that people were commonly using, such as a utility bill at an address to qualify for food stamps, or a driver’s licence from another state (in the case of a student), or any picture ID that was not officially issued by the state of Indiana was not accepted.
to get the official ID would have required a birth cert. or a passport and cost $30. I would find it tough to dig up my papers, $30, wait in line at the DMV all in the last few days before the primary.
voter registration orgs are going to help people get this done before November, but if anyone proposes such a restrictive law in RI they will get a fight from me.
in a country where 60% don’t manage to vote, i oppose setting unreasonable hurdles in the way.
Ralph Mollis is proposing to allow Saturday voting, and to pre-register high school students. great idea.
LikeLike
Interesting, and perhaps the right to vote carries a burden of showing documents about who you are and where you actually live. It used to be that voting was seen not only as a “right” to citizens, but because it was so important a duty and obligation to understand issues, voters needed to demonstrate they could read. After all, if you intended to vote for a candidate or bond issue or new dog catcher, it kind of made sense that you were able to read a name of a candidate or a title of that school bond issue. One assumes now that there would be widespread outrage if we dared demand that voters could read, or new the difference between the Constitution and their grocery bill. In other countries voters are required to vote, or pay stiff fines.
In our part of the world, and we rank somewhere near the bottom in per capita income, voting is almost a moral obligation and upon registration for voting (a painless court house process that requires substantice identification) for voting, one receives a free of charge voter identification card. One can only assume that if potential voters do not have a valid identification, they do not drive cars, never fly commercially, do not have a passport, never cash a check, and on and on. Such “withdrawal” from society is not the fault of society.
LikeLike
Mr Wolberg, poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like were used by the status quo to make it as difficult as possible for anyone but white males of property to vote.
These were blatant tools of discrimination, deliberately set up to prevent the mass of people at the bottom of the scale from exercising their right to vote, and, perhaps thereby overturning the oligarchy that ran our country from the 1850s to 1932.
The cost of the voter ID ($30), according to Nancy, may or may not seem like much to you. But I can guarantee that it’s a lot of money for a retired nun. They don’t make much when they’re working. Plus, if you don’t drive, how are you supposed to get there?
End result, a bunch of people are effectively disenfranchised. And the way it’s been done is cowardly and flatly dishonest.
In order to make sure that only the right sort of people are allowed to vote, Republicans have lied, consistently, flagrantly, and often about wide-spread voter fraud. They have lied. Period. Lied.
There is no evidence that voter fraud is any kind of problem. Ergo, they have lied about the reason for the law. Since they lied–knowingly and often–about the rationale for the law, we have to look at its effects to divine their reasons for perpetrating this act. Since the people most effected are overwhelmingly poor, old, and non-white, we have to infer that this was the sole and complete purpose of enacting the law.
That it is not unconstitutional does not make it any less heinous. Slavery was constitutional, until a specific amendment made it so. Not allowing women to vote was constitutional, until a specific amendment made it so.
As for all those “normal” activities, you can bet your sweet bippy that there are tens of thousands of people who do not do many–any?–of those things. Checks cashed? Why do you think check-cashing operations are proliferating? Because people do not have enough money to open and maintain a bank balance. So they fork over 5 or 10% of their paycheck just to get the cash they need to exist. And if you don’t have enough money for a bank account, there’s a high probability you can’t afford to drive. Let alone fly.
That is not “withdrawal.” That is being kept out of the mainstream by force. Perhaps your exposure to these realities is limited in the wide open spaces of the Southwest (I do not mean that as an insult, but as a fact of geography). But I can tell you that they are a grim reality in the urbanized portions of the country.
You are correct that society cannot be blamed if an individual withdraws. However, in this case, the individuals did not withdraw. Society forced them out. That is an entirely different matter. And it’s reprehensible.
LikeLike
I think it’s also a ‘read the fine print’ situation. you can argue the principles of voter id laws, but Indiana’s was so strict that elderly nuns who had voted all their lives, and a student with a valid driver’s liscence from an adjoining state were turned away. Indiana requires state-issued id that costs $30 and original documents such as birth cert. and time at the registry. a voter registration drive can help a lot of people get this in time for November, but the supremes made their ruling just before the primary and Indiana enforced the law.
Rhode Island has its own history with that, the Dorr Rebellion, which was put down by federal troops when unpropertied white males tried to vote.
LikeLike
Unfortuantely I no longer own a “bippy” sweet or otherwise. And again of course, no one has mentioned a poll tax or anything that can be remotely seen to discriminate on anything other than very “democratic” lines. If urban folks want to vote, either, the voting commissions whence they reside can figure out a legal way to provide suitable ID’s. At a time, when something like 80% of the population owns cell phones that cost $100 or more, when the Catholic Church can find billions of dollars to settle distaseful legal actions, when one assumes the good ladies used an automobile that may have cost $20,000 or more to get to the voting site, the ability to pay $30 for an ID card that all voters concerned have, seems downright silly and more a political action than a rational one. By the same token, if there are poor folks who cannot find $30, a special dispensation can be found allowing them to pay $10 or nothing at all. One suspects if they receive other benefits, they have other welfare benefits, they already have photo ID from the Federal or State agency concerned or that fee could be included in the public benefit package they receive.
I do remain astonished that we treat one of the most significant rights we have, that to vote, as something not worth much effort.
LikeLike
Klaus: “People like Sir S would rather stick to stringent rules rather than allow something like, oh, common sense run the process. It doesn’t matter to sticklers for rules if the voters are personally known to the poll workers. No. The Rule has to be enforced, to the point of lunacy if necessary. Never mind that the nuns don’t drive. They got to have an ID. That’s the Rule.”
Nice red herring try, but expecting voters to verify that they are actually eligible to vote isn’t “jack booted” tactics. It’s called common sense.
“Please note, everyone, that in issuing its ruling, the Surpreme Court admitted that there is virtually no–as in none, nada, zilch–evidence that voter fraud is a problem.”
Another false ascersion that has no basis in reality. In both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections, there were more votes cast than voters registered in Milwaukee. The verified number of fraudulent votes was greater than the margin between the Republican and Democrat candidates.
If you don’t consider that “a problem”, please explain to me what “a problem” is.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933
LikeLike
Sir S
Thanks for the added iteration. The stuff I said did bear repeating, didn’t it.
And, are you lying, or do you really not know better.
1) Last time I checked, Milwaukee was in Wisc. The law was passed in Indiana.
2) Last time I checked, two instances in the same location did not constitute “widespread fraud.”
3) Cite:
Stevens said that Indiana’s desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law was designed to combat.
Several critics pointed to a footnote in Stevens’ opinion to show how far back he went — 140 years — to describe the corrosive effects of widespread fraud at polling places, a reference to Boss Tweed’s influence in New York’s municipal elections in 1868.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id
Note that Stevens’ examples dated to the 1860s, and Boss Tweed. Yup, a really pressing, current problem.
Cite:
…Finally, here’s Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion, which is joined by Justice Ginsburg: Without a shred of evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a problem in the State, much less a crisis, Indiana has adopted one of the most restrictive photo identification requirements in the country….
[The law] targets the poor and the weak…. [B]eing poor has nothing to do with being qualified to vote…. [T]he onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-not-unconstitutional-to-make-voters.html
Note the part abuot the “not a shred of evidence.”
So, Sir S, since I’ve provided evidence for my statements, got any for yours? Why do I suspect not?
Mr Wolberg, I’m astonished at your callous attitude. When you’re working for $10 an hour, $30 is three hours worth of work. Sorry it’s no big deal for you, but the fact remains that it is a big deal for a lot of people.
Who, strangely enough, vote Democratic. The second cite also contains this: in passing the Indiana law, all the Reps voted for it, all the Dems voted against it.
As I said, since there is no evidence that the law was necessary to prevent a current abuse (Shall we call it the Boss Tweed law–about 150 years too late), we have to reverse engineer the motivation from the effect. The effect is that Dem voters are disenfranchised. So I’d guess that was the real reason behind the law.
Which seems corroborated by the fact that all the Reps voted it through.
This is your idea of democracy?
LikeLike