The Supreme Court has heard arguments about Indiana's restrictive voter identification law -- a solution for a non-problem, according to many. For a discussion of the debate, click here. Excerpt:
"The major bipartisan draft fraud report on the subject concluded there's very little polling-place fraud in America. So, increasingly, the effort to stop fictional vote fraud looks like a partisan effort to suppress votes that tend to go to Democrats—and somehow, it's always indigent, elderly, and minority voters who are disproportionately affected. A Republican-controlled legislature passed Indiana's law on a party-line vote, and then a Republican governor signed it, and every judge to cast eyes upon it thereafter seemed to be for or against it based on his or her own political affiliation."
This Indianapolis Observer, who worked in her precinct for a couple of decades, never encountered one incident of voter fraud -- except for one person who wanted to vote in the precinct where he no longer lived (something the voter ID law wouldn't prevent).
As one commentator said: "But a citizen who does not already have a photo ID and is required to obtain one for no reason other than to cast a ballot is in effect paying a poll tax. What more egregious violation of the Constitution could there be?"
UPDATE:
Check out this exploration of the topic by AP reporter Deborah Hastings.
No comments:
Post a Comment