We'll know within the year if we can require the same standard of proof of identity to vote that we do for cashing checks or getting on airplanes.

With the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections on the horizon, the Supreme Court agreed today to consider whether voter-identification laws unfairly keep poor people and members of minority groups from going to the polls.

The justices will hear arguments from an Indiana case, in which a federal district judge and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in January upheld a state law requiring, with certain exceptions, that someone wanting to vote in person in a primary or general election present a government-issued photo identification. Presumably, the court would rule on the case by June.

I think the rulings of the appellate court judges in this case are interesting because they are both correct. Especially this point by the Democrat judge who wrote the dissent in the case.

“Let’s not beat around the bush,” [Judge Terence T. Evans] wrote. “The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”

Quite true. Having grown up outside of Chicago, I readily affirm that my support for such laws is based upon my explicit and conscious desire to disenfranchise certain key Democrat constituencies.

Dead-Americans.

Fantasy-Americans.

Felon-Americans.

"Not American Citizen"-Americans.

After all, those groups have been key to influencing elections and preventing GOP victories for years. And I believe that keeping members of these groups from voting violates nobody's rights under the Fourteenth Amendment -- especially when the necessary identification documents are available free to American citizens under the voter ID laws.

Posted by: Greg at 10:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.