The Indy Star has coverage here.
For a Democratic viewpoint, you can read this piece by Marie Cocco.
On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge to Indiana's strict law requiring photo identification in order for a voter to cast a ballot at the polls. The state claims the law is necessary to stop voter fraud. Yet no one -- not Indiana officials, not the U.S. Justice Department, which has taken the state's side, nor any commission -- has come up with a single case in the state's history in which an imposter showed up and cast a vote.
Evidently Ms. Cocco hasn't heard one of the fastest growing demographic of voters also known as, the dead vote. Maybe she doesn't think illegals are voting in some areas, but who would bet against this?
For The GOP side, you can read the Star editorial page.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, in a 2006 ruling, demolished arguments put forward by the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. "Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting,'' Barker wrote at the time.
Think about that: The plaintiffs failed to find a single voter who couldn't cast a ballot because of the ID requirement. If no was injured, is there really a case?
The obvious answer to this is no. All citizens that want to vote can get an ID card, if they do not have a drivers license. There is no excuse whatsoever, for feeling disenfranchised.
Yet, the big comeback is always a concern, "the poor cannot afford an ID". But what they don't tell you is, by law anyone in Indiana can get it free.
Then, we get the "but the shut-ins like the elderly and the handicapped cannot get around town very easily" objection. I say, if they can get to vote, they can certainly go to the local BMV and get an ID on one of the other 364 (or 365 days) of the year. Certainly the same people that make sure they get to the polls can get them to the BMV, can they not?
I have often wondered, when people cry the loudest about new safeguards to stop people from breaking rules, if they aren't the ones breaking them.
With all of the excitement you would find at an insurance seminar, here is a discussion on this case. (Warning: It's not a short video.) As I post this update, I am not quite a third of the way through listening to this and it's obvious the leanings of the panel (at least thus far). The first two speakers are clearly against this law and yet, they have come up with no logical reasoning as to why it should be ruled as unconstitutional.
ANOTHER UPDATE (1-10-08):
AC of Fore Left has left a link in the comments that goes with this post. Take a look at this little gem.