[July4]

Will somebody please explain to me why minority races, poor people, and older persons would be less likely to vote if photographic ID’s are required at the polls.

I already understand how easy it must be for fraudulent votes to be cast, I just don’t get why anyone would object to the requirement for positive identification.

[the lone wolf]

"Will somebody please explain to me why minority races, poor people, and older persons would be less likely to vote if photographic ID’s are required at the polls."

They are not less likely to vote due to the ID requirement. But when the dead voters and the illegal aliens fail to show up at the polls in November (since they don't have valid IDs) this will be the Democratic talking point. They have to say something, and they just can't quite admit what they have been doing for the past 50 years, can they?

[Gondring]

Will somebody please explain to me why minority races, poor people, and older persons would be less likely to vote if photographic ID’s are required at the polls.

One reason given by Justice Souter is the burden of the trip to the office to get an ID, if the person does not have transportation. He said that the absentee ballot doesn't cover it, though, because the person can't get help unless he goes to the polls. So if he can get to the polls, why can't he get an ID?

I'm curious about what people think this decision will do, though. They evidently couldn't produce evidence that there's impersonation of voters going on...so how does the ID requirement stop anything? That is, what's the fraud that's actually going on--and how would requiring ID stop it?