Commentary: "Indiana's Voter-ID is Harmful and Worthless"
"Indiana's voter-ID law is harmful and worthless," argues Sri Srinivasan and ACS Board of Advisors Member Walter E. Dellinger in a commentary in Slate.
Because a photo-ID requirement exists to prevent a type of fraud that appears to be imaginary, the requirement would be hard to justify even if it imposed only a minimal impact on legitimate voters. But a photo-ID law in fact imposes substantial burdens on the right to vote. Studies generally show that somewhere in the range of 10 percent of voting-age citizens—or more than 20 million people—lack a government-issued photo ID. Many of these people do not drive and do not have a license, the most common form of government-issued ID. Lower-income, minority, and young and old voters are far more likely to be in this group. In that light, it is unsurprising that the Indiana photo-ID requirement was enacted on a strict party-line vote, with no Republican voting against the measure and no Democrat voting in its favor. . . .Defenders of the voter-ID law say that the Supreme Court shouldn't second guess Indiana's legislators. In many areas of the law, that is a reasonable stance. But laws burdening the right to vote are different. As the late legal scholar John Hart Ely pointed out years ago in his classic work Democracy and Distrust, independent courts should not leave to legislators the final word on the rules by which legislators themselves are elected or ousted. At a time when partisan suspicion about the electoral process is potentially corrosive, the court needs to exercise its independent judgment about laws such as Indiana's—and guard against unfair burdening of the right to vote.
Written By:TJF On January 9, 2008 9:51 PM
"Because a photo-ID requirement exists to prevent a type of fraud that appears to be imaginary"
So since no ID is required then you are saying that not a single person has voted under someone elses name? Of course it has not been detected as they can't ask for ID.
"tudies generally show that somewhere in the range of 10 percent of voting-age citizens—or more than 20 million people—lack a government-issued photo ID. Many of these people do not drive and do not have a license, the most common form of government-issued ID. Lower-income, minority, and young and old voters are far more likely to be in this group"
Well they presumably can get to the polling station right? Or maybe that too is too much of a burden and their friendly local party official helps them out and finds someone to actually go and vote for them?
If I take your logic to its conclusion then maybe registering to vote is a burden, maybe being a US citizen is a burden, let everyone vote. Maybe that too would impose undue hardship on someone so maybe the government should just tell us who gets elected and we could just skip the voting all together. I cannot believe this case is at the supreme court. How much money has been spent on legal fees and court fees over the years? Maybe the people behind this should save their money and give poor people a ride to the DMV to get a state ID card...it would cost way less and not waste everybody's time and effort.
Ridiculous!