Federal judges normally don't employ phrases like "get over it'' in crafting their opinions. Yet, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker said as much last week in knocking down objections to Indiana's new voter ID law.
"Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting,'' Barker wrote.
The judge also described a report written by an expert hired by the state Democratic Party as "utterly incredible and unreliable.''
Ouch.
The fact that Barker so readily saw through their arguments should have persuaded the plaintiffs -- the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana -- to slink away quietly. Unfortunately, an appeal is planned.
Their case is based on the incredulous notion that in 2006 it's too taxing to expect an individual to produce a photo ID before casting a ballot. Never mind that folks are routinely asked to produce an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, pick up prescription drugs or complete any number of other common transactions. Never mind that state law also enables anyone to receive a free photo ID from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. And never mind that anyone who objects to or simply can't obtain an ID can always vote using an absentee ballot.
As Barker noted, "It is a testament to the law's minimal burden and narrow crafting'' that the plaintiffs were unable to produce anyone who would be stopped from voting for lack of an ID.
Such facts, however, haven't kept alarmists from asserting -- without evidence -- that the measure is a Republican plot to exclude voters from the polls. Any fair-minded person should see through such nonsense, recognizing that the law is a commonsense requirement at a time when concern over voter fraud is high.
Judge Barker certainly did.
Every law that is going through govt bodies all over the country have provisions that allow the poor and underprivileged to get free ID's.
Liberals oppose voter ID's....they question is why?
Do you have such a low opinion of minorities and elderly that you don't think they can get a free ID?
Of course, the real answer is that a voter ID makes it harder to cheat. If I am not right, tell me what the "real" reason is to oppose voter ID cards.
Every law that is going through govt bodies all over the country have provisions that allow the poor and underprivileged to get free ID's.
Liberals oppose voter ID's....they question is why?
Do you have such a low opinion of minorities and elderly that you don't think they can get a free ID?
Of course, the real answer is that a voter ID makes it harder to cheat. If I am not right, tell me what the "real" reason is to oppose voter ID cards.
Posts
8 comments:
OK, read this first. I am not necessarily opposed to photo IDs for voters. Got it? But please explain what problem a photo ID solves. Don't say it solves cheating. Tell me how the lack of photo IDs allows cheating.
If a person can vote using an absentee ballot without a photo ID, what problem has the photo ID solved?
In my state, when you go to the polls, you must sign in and your signature is compared to the one on your voter registration. Your signature is valid proof of identification for legal documents.
In WI, there is NOTHING needed to vote...all you need is to say where you live and that is that...
So here is what happens Jim,
around 7pm, DNC workers call the polls and ask which people have not voted...for some reason they have to tell them...
The DNC then takes buses to the inner city and pays people to go to polls and say they live at certain addresses...think it doesn't happen?
Why is it in the inncer city there are massive lives at 8pm?
How will a voter ID stop cheating? there is one way right there....The right to vote should be protected from cheating like this...
Are they not asked to sign in? Seems to me having to sign in and a signature comparison would achieve the same thing and you would not have to go to the trouble AND TAXPAYER EXPENSE of a photo ID system.
And I would say that the reason there are lines at 8:00 is because that's what time people get to the polls after they get off work.
disagree with your 8pm reasoning...I'll stick with mine..makes much more sense...
what person gets done with work at 7 or 730?
And no, I go to the poll, say my address, and I get a ballot, serious...I show my ID anyway and tell them I SHOULD have to.
Then I would say that your state or precinct has an extraordinarily weak process for verifying voter eligibility. And I still say, having to verify a signature would work just as well if not better than a photo ID and wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.
I guess if we are going to waste bilions on crap, I'll spend a bit on voter ID cards...but atleast the signature thing would make it harder to cheat...I agree on that
The only, and I mean only, problem with this is that the first kink in the program, and it will be dissolved. I dont know why, but I have this feeling that it will go that way. I hope I am wrong.
I think if we just go back to paper ballots, as one I saw earlier in the news today has done, then that would cure a good portion of the problem.
Show your i.d., sign your name, and pen and paper to vote. Should be all that's necessary, you'd think, but so many have fake i.d.s, and I read of quite a few who voted in several states at the last (and previous) election.
Sssoooo, the solution is still out there. Somewhere.
Post a Comment