Supreme Court Votes in Favor of Voter ID

  • Rick Scarborough
  • May 5, 2008

Click here for a printable version.

The Supreme Court by a convincing majority of six-to-three affirmed a principle the American people have overwhelmingly supported for some time: asking citizens to produce a simple form of identification before voting.  In its ruling the Court upheld a 2005 Indiana law requiring photo IDs for voters. Under the law, a voter who shows up at the polls without a photo ID can cast a provisional ballot to be counted only if, within the next 10 days, the voter shows a photo ID to the local county clerk.A recent Rasmussen Reports poll showed 80 percent of voters believe everyone should be required to show photo identification to vote. Only 13 percent disagree.  When it comes to concern about voting fraud, 23 percent believe that a large number of ineligible people are allowed to vote. Republicans, for their part, were uniformly positive about the ruling. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said the decision will give Americans "renewed faith in their government’s ability to conduct fair and honest elections."  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the ruling "disappointing," saying the decision "places obstacles to the fundamental rights of American citizens—especially the poor, the elderly, and individuals with disabilities—to participate in the electoral process."  How can anyone argue against protecting the integrity of the voting system by requiring voters to identify themselves every time they vote on Election Day?

In what is yet another blow to religious liberty in Canada, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered Christian Horizons, Ontario's largest provider of developmental services, to cease using an employment contract containing a morality clause in which the staff promises they will not engage in anti-Christian activities. Connie Heintz, a former employee who signed onto the "morality statement" as a condition of employment, promised not to engage in "homosexual relationships", "extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)", "pre-marital sexual relationships (fornication)", "viewing or reading pornographic material" and "lying".  Ms. Heintz was fully aware of the clause and the religious beliefs of the organization before signing the contract.  The ruling also demands that the organization pay $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits to a woman who signed onto the contract and then entered a homosexual relationship and subsequently quit her job with the organization.  The ruling which was decided by a single adjudicator - Michael Gottheil - further ruled that all managers and employees receive a pro-homosexuality "human rights training program." 

Pastor Rick Scarborough is sharing a five part series on "The Biblical Role of the Church in Politics" on our Website starting this week. You may listen or download the sermons here.
Pastor Scarborough looks at where the separation of church and state made a wrong turn. In this series he shares his interpretation of the First mendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."He will lead us on the journey of how this amendment was corrupted by the judicial system in this country. We the people did not make these changes; a few corrupt judges have been able to distort the true meaning of the writers of the First Amendment. He will also share how the church has let us down concerning this important freedom. Check out our Website to listen to these exciting sermons.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button