The League of Women Voters of Indiana filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the state’s voter ID law as a violation of the state constitution.
The new challenge comes less than two months after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Indiana law and found that states may require photo identification at the polls.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled, this law is constitutional. Yet, for some unknown reason, these people seem to want to re-invent the wheel at every possible turn. Instead of accepting the SCOTUS decision, they want to place more burden on the taxpayers of Indiana by filing another frivolous lawsuit from another angle.
The league’s challenge, naming Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita as defendant, is based on a section of the state constitution requiring changes in voting eligibility to be enacted only by amending the constitution, said the group’s president, Joanne Evers.
“The law hinders and discourages Indiana voters from participating in our representative government of checks and balances,” she said.
What a crock. Ms. Evers should get a real job somewhere, as she obviously has very little meaning or purpose in her life right now. The fact that she is using this same tired old argument of disenfranchising voters, tells me she has trouble accepting decisions, in which she cannot claim victory. Instead of accepting the fact that none of the many claims by opponents of this law have been upheld or otherwise validated, they press onward with an idiotic agenda.
Welcome to Indiana's version of "Ground Hog's Day".
2 comments:
One definition of a liberal is someone who won't listen to logic and for whom the ends always justify the means.
1. Voter id laws are common sense. They prevent voter fraud without disenfranchising anyone.
2. The reason for opposing them is to allow voter fraud for the benefit of a particular political party. That's not how it works in a democracy.
I recently commented at GM’s Corner, no one in this country should be surprised to learn that socialists seek to institute socialist (if not outright Marxist) programs once St. Obama reaches the White House. In the discussion relative to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine,” Woody points out that it is an attack on free speech. I wonder why anyone would be surprised to learn that socialists will support government programs that suit their purposes, and oppose government when it does not. In this regard, Greg is blessed with Eagle vision.
Our danger is that the people of Canada, the UK, and a host of other European nations have already lost important human rights – free speech among them. Allowing citizens to vote numerous times, and extending voting rights to dead people will assure the socialists of a clear victory in state and national elections, and isn’t “by hook or crook” a great deal more important that integrity?
Greg and I were sitting around drinking beer, laughing, and slapping our knees that anyone would take a foreign visitor to Chicago to begin with. So I see that it all worked out to the betterment (not to mention safety) of your friends from Down Under. What could these nice people have done to deserve a trip to Chicago, anyway? Obviously, you carry a grudge.
Post a Comment