You got ID? Supreme Court upholds Indiana voter identification laws

Tuesday, April 29 2008

The Supreme Court voted 6-3 Monday to uphold a law requiring voters in Indiana to present ID at the polls. The court rejected the argument that the law discriminates against the elderly, the poor and minorities.

Scholars say there is little evidence that the law prevents fraud, but there is also little evidence that it discriminates against specific groups of people. Joining The Takeaway are Columbia Law Professor Nate Persily and Karen Vaughn, a voter who found her right to vote limited by the law.

You guys blew it in your interview on oil prices this morning. You promised to find out why prices keep going up despite the leveling off of demand. However, you never bothered to ask WHY. Your guest simply said there are a variety of reasons. No followup...like what's the main reason. Some argue that the world has reached peak oil. Instead, your piece was simply about how horrible the price rise is and how we might see $200 a barrel oil. Very little substance to your interview my friends. You must do better if you are to compete or offer a genuine alternative to Morning Edition.

Posted by Jay Freed, 6:45 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

The fundamental foundation of a true democracy is the right to vote. Voting is not a privilege for the wealthy -- it is a right for all citizens of a certain age. In this country, we have fought for this right. The Roberts Court's recent decision represents a fundamental sea change in this concept. It is based on rumors of fraud -- even as was stated in the decision -- since there are nearly no actual cases of fraud. It will, I fear, be the beginning of many onerous laws to restrict the right to vote in our nation to the upperclasses.

Posted by Fred S., 8:16 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

I thought the depth of the farm bill discussion was very good. That is a story I have not heard in the same way on public radio before... keep it up.

Posted by Jason, 8:20 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

We should be making it easier for people to vote, not throwing up yet more roadblocks. I don't care if the ID is free -- has anyone on the Supreme Court ever stood in line at their local DMV? How do you GET to the DMV if you don't have a car? But the ruling elite in this country wants fewer people to vote, not more. Oh, I forgot, we don't have a ruling elite. Sorry.

Posted by Ken, 8:21 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Want to increase voter participation? Do three things: 1)Polling places should issue voting certificate to everyone who votes. Those with Certificfates can claim $100 tax break by supplying form with their tax return. 2)Make elections on weekends. 3) Have the GOV't provide mobile ID issuance facilities at convenient locations at various polling places through out every state on a regular basis throughout the year.

Posted by Dan, 8:22 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

How to fix voting (duh) 1.) Make election day a national holiday 2.) Add polling places in malls 3.) "Yes yes yes" to your guest who suggested better pollworker training.

Posted by Rob (NYC), 8:25 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

I hope that in your next segment on the Farm Bill you will talk about the percentage of the bill that funds Food Stamps. Criticism of the bill is fair only if you include that context.

Posted by Betty, 8:32 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

John, re: your jokey comment about the "moron" vote - closer to reality than you may have realized. My home state of NJ recently gave "idiots" the vote - really! See: http://www.buzzmachine.com/2007/10/16/so-much-for-the-idiot-vote/ Okay, here's the serious explanation: The following archaic (and of course, offensive by today's standards) wording was recently stricken from the NJ constitution: “No idiot or insane person should enjoy the right of suffrage.”

Posted by Rob (Hoboken NJ), 8:55 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Is WNYC trying to appeal to a wider audience with this new program? A less discerning audience? On this, only the second day of Take Out, I want to say that this is reminscent of those annoying male/female programs on the radio. The shock jocks and their giggling female side kicks. Surely not as bad as them and less strident, but definitely similar to that annoying format, with silly banter, interurptions of each other, self concious attempts at light hearted humor, not warrented by the topic. So far I really really don't like it one little bit. Don't lower your standards.

Posted by mary westring, 9:03 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

So far NPR lite seems apt. Miley Cyrus flap - that's when I flipped the dial. Let's liberate WNYC AM for Morning Edition. The bits of news on the Takeaway are already available in many other formats. Don't need public radio for that.

Posted by Barbara Lindheim, 9:20 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Amen

Posted by Sarah, 9:33 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Although, I understand the tone of dislike regarding the Miley Cyrus NPR Lite comment I disagree. The piece was not a focal 4-9 minute look at an issue, it was as appropriate, two 9yr olds discussing a media star they have incessant contact with displaying their differing points of view for 120 seconds. I think the show has it right but in the final analysis in the lyrics of she who must be endured, "Nobody's perfect."

Posted by John Baronian, 9:41 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Voting has been broken for ages. In fact the election process is broken. It seems as though this campaign has gone on forever. It has become the Battan Death March of the Democrats. TRUE campaign finance reform is long overdue.

Posted by David Hollis, 10:33 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

There is one good thing about this new show - the ability for me to air my complaints about its horrible format and "news" online. I hope everyone at WNYC considers this a great success. Maybe I don't quite understand the concept here - in order to increase WNYC's listener base, they're going to alienate their core base? Interesting theory. Let me know how that works out. I'll have to read about it in the paper because I won't be listening to NPR in the morning anymore. I could give it some time, as some here have suggested (It will get better! Really!), but I have no desire to listen to two people chattering in the morning - I want hard news. I imagine many others do as well.

Posted by Loyal Listener, 10:33 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

I hail the supreme court for making a common sense judgment. I think just because you are breathing and over 18 you can vote degrades the responsibility that accompanies the right to vote. If you can not take the time and trouble to get an ID to qualify for the honor perhaps you are not minimally engaged in life at all. It certainly benefits one to have an ID to cash a check, be admitted to an emergency or get on a bus. It may be nice just to be able to prove who you are should you get amnesia or bumped on the head.

Posted by Tom, 10:33 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

regarding your comment about the basic economics not explaining the failure of increasing oil prices to result in a quick increase in supply: basic economics includes a concept called "elasticity". elasticity of supply is influenced by several factors and is not fixed. the following articles my be helpful: http://economics.about.com/cs/micfrohelp/a/elasticity.htm http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/elasticity/elasticity_of_supply.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_supply [please note that these articles are quite general and do not explicitly deal with speculation, hoarding, political factors, natural disasters, etc.] AFAICT what you seem to be noticing is that the supply of oil is currently less elastic than you expected. IMHO the problems are not with basic economics, but with your understanding of basic economics and your exectations. please do your homework before criticizing an entire discipline.

Posted by ericf, 10:37 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Oh. My. G-d. It's the Satellite Sisters of radio news. Cutesy comments and forced bonhomie at 6am -- revolting. Bring back Morning Edition. Please.

Posted by Waldo, 10:49 a.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

One of the problems we liberals have is our tendency to patronize the poor and working classes. One of the reactions to the voter id decision is that itwill discriminate against the poor, who do not have photo id. Well why the hell don't they? How can anyone function in our culture or economy without a photo id? You need it to drive, fly, cash a check, open a bank accound, get into some buildings, eat in the college cafeteria, etc. Rather than patting these folks on the head saying "there, there little fella, you don't need a photo id." Let's elevate them to the point where they can proudly furnish a drivers license, passport, college id, work id, or (gasp!!) hunting license when the election workers ask for it. Have I ever stood in line at the DMV? Yes, frequently, but I accept it as something I have to do if I want to be part of this nation. There may be other reasons to oppose a photo id to vote, but marginalizing poor people is not one of them.

Posted by Paul, 12:54 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

[[Comment partially removed. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. - http://www.thetakeaway.org/about/comment_guidelines.html]] I am sorry you're all used to the blandest of the bland boring ediiton that NPR has been spoon feeding it's listeners for FAR too long.) Maybe Rob, if you had READ John's Book, "Moving Violations", or seen one of the hundreds of speeches John has given for the past 15 years, you'd realize Maybe he was being sarcastic, playful, and infinitely intelligent all at the same time. I'm sorry - you New York Intellectuals who cant sit through Miley Cyrus (of course John's kids hate her) Grow up - this is pop culture - not everything is highbrow broadway musicals and art exhibits at MOMA. Name a shock jock that is currently a faculty member @ MIT...god, why don't you all unbutton your top button on your shirt, loosen up the tie and relax. C'mon, if you cant relate to GTA 4 and Miley Cyrus, yuor pretty out of touch. Far from NPR lite - This is NPR Revolutionary.

Posted by Julian W., 1:02 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

So, what we have here is Imus-on-brie? The title of the show is the first hint that your aim is to elevate style over substance, and so far, you seem to be succeeding. Way too much time chattering at each other, pretending that your standard-issue AM-radio banter contributes to human understanding. You have a guy explain to you that the biggest hitch in voting is poor training of poll workers, something you both admit you hadn't known till he told you. This is a guy you invited on the show to give expert commentary on voting. When he tells you something new, what do you do? Cut him off in order to announce to your audience that you now have your first suggestion on improving voting – TADA! - so please call in with lots more, but not that one. Please, pipe down and let informed people have the mike. It is a safe assumption that public radio listeners prefer information to entertainment from their news shows, so get back to a format that devotes most of its effort to delivering information. The whole notion that we need more chit-chat and less substance is appalling.

Posted by kharris, 2:38 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

I don't see how requiring ID to vote is any different than requiring voter registration as long as a form of ID is available for free in every state.

Posted by Dan Hewins, 4:26 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Judging from the vituperation quotient of some of these comments, something about the show is obviously in contact with radio's third rail. Whoa. Can we not give our erstwhile hosts a chance to find their stride in this evidently electrifying new format?

Posted by John G, 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

OK, to be fair I'll listen again in 6 months if the show's still on. But I'm not going to listen between now and then while the hosts practice. Tomorrow morning I'll listen to WQXR between 6 and 7 am. This show has Mrs, Walker's fingerprints all over it.

Posted by Waldo, 4:54 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

I am a long time listener to morning edition. And an early listener. I start listening around 5 am. I knew this program was going to be on, though I forgot what time. When the takeaway started - it was, well, startling. I believe the concept to be a good one, but the approach - well - it's a bit over the top aggressive, and frankly, I found it annoying enough to turn it off. To me, and others I've discussed this with, it sounds too much like the screaming heads on cable TV - along with the other screamers on the radio. I've always been a fan of John Hockenberry - but please, John, lay off the caffeine. Or pull back from the mic. Perhaps it's the early hour it's on in the NY market on the FM "dial", but I honestly don't think I will be tuning in as long as it continues to sound as aggressive as it does now. No matter what the hour. I find the fast - talking, overly loud type of news coverage to overwhelm the content, which in this case is probably good and worthy of hearing. But I won't be listening.

Posted by karen , 5:23 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Your program seems to be imitating the style of the corporate radio NPR listeners hope to avoid. Meaningless sound bites selling useless products. It's not up to the level of NPR programing. This morning you had a farmer who was capable of explaining what's wrong with the Farm Bill, corporate farming, and the worldwide hunger problem, and how they're all connected. But before he could make his point, he was cut off so we could listen to several minutes on the young Disney's actress' photo in Vanity Fair and the release of Grand Theft Auto. Please. We can hear all about that on WABC.

Posted by Gus , 5:33 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

This is all a red herring to keep the press focused on voter fraud that doesn't exist. Comparing signatures is absolutely adequate.

Posted by amanda, 5:33 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Regarding the recent Supreme Court decision on voter ID; remember, the page from Karl Rove's playbook is not to have the vote expanded to more citizens. Less people voting gives greater opportunities for Republican candidates.

Posted by Richard Unice, 6:08 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Congrats on your new show! I kinda get what you are trying to create and like the fresh approach and innovative semi-interactive format. I created a channel for the show on Hubdog.com for Pocket PC and smartphone users to automatically update their devices. I do hope you will indeed consolidate the shows into single pieces, as it would allow update by date rather than by number of stories, as the number of stories will most likely fluctuate. I do however hope that the news focus will mature into more global and important coverage. There are a million shows talking about Grand Theft Auto and Hanna Montana, I'd like to hear more in depth discussions of what Chavez is up to, what is going inside the head of Iranians, what Hammas is up to, and what the hack is gonna happen in Iraq after the dust settles. You have a great opportunity of taking news coverage to the people through interactivity, and taking a cue from that, please handle with care!

Posted by Amos Elroy, 11:14 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

Jive elitism

Posted by Glenn, 11:26 p.m. Tuesday, April 29 2008 Permalink

In you interview with the scientist about beta blockers and their effect on african americans you only touched on the most important aspect and then made light of it. How do tell if someone is african american? It is my understanding that there is no genetic basis to the concept of race. As the interviewee stated, you miss a lot if you just look at skin color. Not only would the election be better if we all paid less attention to skin color, society would be as well. Stories like this have the potential to explain how that is backed by science.