WASHINGTON (AP) -- The dispute over Indiana's voter ID law that is headed to the Supreme Court in January is as much a partisan political drama as a legal tussle.
On one side are mainly Republican backers of the law, including the Bush administration, who say state-produced photo identification is a prudent measure intended to cut down on vote fraud. Yet there have been no Indiana prosecutions of in-person voter fraud - the kind the law is supposed to prevent.
On the other side are mainly Democratic opponents who call voter ID a modern-day poll tax that will disproportionately affect poor, minority and elderly voters - who tend to back Democrats. Yet, a federal judge found that opponents of the law were unable to produce evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who had been barred from voting
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SCOTUS_VOTER_ID?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
My question is this. Why would anyone have a hard time with this ID law? In these days you must have ID to do almost any money transaction. If you go to the bank to cash a check you must prove who you are. If you use your credit card, sometimes they will ask for ID.
So why is proving who you are at the polls so disrupting to these folks. You can get a free ID if you do not have anything else. So what is the beef?
The voter ID requirement takes all the fun out of voting for those who show up at the polls to vote for someone else. It's easy enough to find the names of those who are registered but who do not vote, and those who are deceased but are still on the voter rolls. You are right -- there is no other legitimate reason to oppose this law. Isn't it interesting that Howard Dean, chair of the national democrat party, also opposes this law, along with local Indiana democrats who brought this lawsuit. Most homeless shelters require photo ID, along with govt agencies issuing poor relief. Any argument about 'helping the poor' is groundless.
Post a Comment