Last week, the Supreme Court lifted the injunction imposed by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding a North Dakota law that would require state residents to produce a government ID with a current residential street address before casting their vote.
The decision drew a brief dissent from progressive activist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg along with Justice Elena Kagan, warning that the decision would create confusion in North Dakota since the original order regarding street address requirement was for the primary elections, which were held in June.
Justice Ginsburg brief dissent explained, “The risk of voter confusion appears severe here because the injunction against requiring residential-address identification was in force during the primary election and because the secretary of state’s website announced for months the ID requirements as they existed under that injunction,” Ginsburg wrote. “Reasonable voters may well assume that the IDs allowing them to vote in the primary election would remain valid in the general election.”
Adding, “If the 8th Circuit’s stay is not vacated, the risk of disfranchisement is large.”
North Dakota had argued that the law would actually improve the integrity of the ballot box and that an ID with a current residential street address, would eliminate confusion regarding the 800 different ballots used in the state during the 2016 election cycle, which were assigned by addresses.
However, not everyone is pleased with the Supreme Court’s ruling especially incumbent Democrat Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who is facing a tough uphill battle for reelection.
Senator Heitkamp enjoys strong support from Native American communities, those same communities where voter ID registration is opposed.
And where a large group of American Indians (Heitkamp supporters), initially challenged the residential street address requirement, arguing that it imposes “impossible and severe burdens on the franchise for Native American voters.”
The group argued to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that many Native Americans live on reservations lacking individual street addresses, the court agreed and placed a temporary court injunction, prohibiting the law to take effect.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling almost assures Heitkamp’s opponent Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer a senate seat.
No doubt every American citizen should have the right to vote; likewise, every American citizen should be required to have a voter ID card, identifying that individual, which in turn protects both that individuals right to vote and the country from voter fraud.
Moreover, a recent federal appeals court in Texas took the opposite view of North Dakota’s 8th Circuit Court ruling, stating that the “Texas voter ID law does not discriminate and can stand,” further indicating that the law does not discriminate against black and Hispanic voters.
That decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, overturned a lower-court ruling that had struck down the law
It’s also noteworthy to point out that a recent study conducted by an independent New Jersey research group called “Just Facts”, directed a series of post-election polls regarding voter fraud among none-citizens, and found that as many as 5.7 million none-citizens may have actually voted in the 2008 election, guaranteeing Barack Obama the White House.
President James D. Agresti and his research team took the data provided by Harvard/YouGov Study, which every 2-years question’s a sample size of tens of thousands of actual voters. And within that sampling, some individuals have acknowledged they’re none-citizens and are thus ineligible to vote.
That anecdotal evidence while not conclusive regarding the actual number of none-citizens voting does provide a reasoned base-line.
Which at the very least should settle the argument in the affirmative, regarding voter IDs