Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Supremes to Decide Photo ID Law; "May Deter Democrats From Voting"

It figures any move to legally show your true identity at the ballot box would have the Democrats up in arms.

They claim to want clean elections, so why should something so innocuous as a valid photo identification have them fretting?

Court to decide photo ID voting law
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would decide whether voters can be required to show photo identification, a move that can limit participation of the elderly and poor in elections.

The justices, acting ahead of next year's national elections, said they would review Indiana's voting law, which is considered one of the most restrictive in the country. It requires voters to present photo ID like a driver's license or passport.
Now how exactly that's restrictive, they don't explain.

Democrats spend untold millions with their annual voter registration drives, how about taking the time between now and next November helping issue photo IDs?

Or are they afraid all those mysterious votes them seem to conjure up in certain precincts might suddenly disappear?
The 2005 law has been challenged by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Indiana Democratic Party, who charge it unfairly limits the right to vote, especially affecting the elderly, poor, disabled or homeless.

Opponents of the law said those people often can't afford the costs of obtaining identification documents or have trouble negotiating the bureaucracy involved in applying for them.
Well, cry me a river. If you're too lazy or incompetent to get a photo ID, then it's your problem that you may not be eligible to vote.

As if it weren't obvious enough such a law will affect Democrats most, this subhead should remove all doubt.

A U.S. appeals court upheld the law, acknowledging it would discourage some people from voting and was more likely to deter Democratic voters than Republicans.
Is that because maybe Democrats are more prone to voter fraud?
State Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said granting Supreme Court review of the issue now would likely prompt a spate of lawsuits across the nation that would disrupt the 2008 presidential primaries and create new uncertainty over the validity of all voter identification requirements.

He said the justices should wait for another case after the 2008 elections.

But the Supreme Court rejected that recommendation. It is expected to hear arguments in the case early next year, with a decision due by the end of June.
Fair enough. That will give these hapless Democrats more than four months to get off their asses and get a valid photo identification.

No comments: