Monday, April 28, 2008

Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law

Here is the story from the Indy star.

The Supreme Court, in a fractured decision, upheld an Indiana law today that requires voters show a photo ID issued by the federal or state government.

“States should have the ability to implement appropriate and constitutional steps to protect their electoral systems from fraud,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said in response. “We can move forward in Indiana with a process that provides constitutional protections to its citizens protecting their vote from potential fraudulent activity.”


Naturally, MSNBC is reporting that Obama has weighed in on the decision.

Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana's voter ID law, calling it "wrong," and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.

"I am disappointed by today's Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's photo identification law -- one of the most restrictive in the nation," Obama said in a written statement.


Translation: Now we will be disenfranchising the poorest demographic of all voters, the dead voters.

He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana's voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that "it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups."


Malarkey.

The state is offering state IDs to all that cannot afford them, for free, no charge. Nada, zip, none, zero. Just fill out a form, sign your name, and presto change-o abracadabra, you will have an ID card. You can then, take that card to the polls and vote, provided you are registered.

When you cash a check you need an ID. When you rent a movie, you need an ID. To get into a bar, you need an ID. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that voting requires one too?

But the saddest argument of all? Many of the opponents are saying this puts an undue burden on these "poor" people. Because now, they will have to find a ride to get the ID. They will have to take time out of their busy day (while waiting on the mail to bring their government checks) and go get it. They may even have to ask a family member or friend to drive them down. I know gas is high, but it only has to be done once.

I guess desperate people say and do desperate things, when they're wrong.

Good for the Supreme Court, for getting one right.


4 comments:

Greg said...

Literally every time I have gone to vote since I bought my house almost 6 six years ago, I have noticed that the people who owned the house before me are right there on the voters' list. I always think how easy it would be for me to return later and vote as the husband, or have my non-citizen wife vote as the woman who used to own the house. Or maybe this is a deliberate practice by election officials to allow the insiders to vote as those people. It truly is amazing, as you say LAS, that I need an id to buy a beer, but not to vote. That would violate my human rights!

BTW, Barack Hussein Obama, speaking of disenfranchising voters, what about Democrats in Florida and Michigan who want a part in choosing their party's nominee?

Obob said...

I am very happy the Robed Wonders got this right. I know one of the lawyers who argued aganist this on behalf of the Indiana DNC, very good guy.

LASunsett said...

//BTW, Barack Hussein Obama, speaking of disenfranchising voters, what about Democrats in Florida and Michigan who want a part in choosing their party's nominee?//

That's totally different Greg and you know it.

;)

LASunsett said...

//I am very happy the Robed Wonders got this right.//

After severely botching the KELO case, they needed to get this one right. I'll sing their praises when they reverse that damned thing.