Ignorant article.
There is no hardship in getting a photo id.
Folks use them for a host of other things every single day.
Most likely a good reason for that, too. ;)
Where’s the barf alert?? Just reading the excerpt makes me want to jump through the internet and slap the writter.
SacBee stands up to be counted in favor of electoral fraud. Nice work, editors!
Pure unadulterated bull.
That just means they've gotten away with it.
I don't get it. If there is no problem with fraud, why should the editor be concerned about an antifraud measure?
Yes. Rank with one of the worst, right libs?
Right up there with Roe v. Wade?
Yeah, if you're an illegal or like to vote at several different precincts on election day.
And they will probably vote absentee from their home state, too, then? No, college kids should NOT be allowed to vote locally if they still claim a home address in another city or state.
The law may or may not be effective or even necessary. But in a democratic republic, isn't that up to the people (through their elected representatives in the legislature) to decide? SCOTUS didn't pass judgement on the efficacy of the law, only on the constitutionality of it. If the people of Indiana, or any other state with a similar law don't like it, they can change it or repeal it altogether. I don't recall seeing anything in the SCOTUS ruling requiring states to require photo ID.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/10/that-woman-whos-challenging-indianas-voter-id-law-registered-to-vote-in-two-states/
What an idiot!
We have court rulings that invented out of whole cloth a constitutional right to abortion.
We have court rulings that evicerated states’ rights.
We have court rulings that expand government power to take property for “public benefit” when the constitution clearly only provided for seizure of property for “public use”.
And this idiot thinks that a ruling that upholds a duly passed law requiring proof of identity and eligibility to vote constitutes “one of the worst rulings in history”? Again, WHAT AN IDIOT!!!!!
Consider the case of Theresa Clemente, a 78-year-old registered Indiana voter who has no driver's license. An amicus brief detailed her story. When she heard about Indiana's new law, she attempted to get a qualifying photo ID. She went to the state Bureau of Motor Vehicles with her Social Security card, utility bill, property tax bill, credit card and voter registration card. Not good enough. She needed her birth certificate. She returned with it, only to be told that it was not a "certified copy." So she mailed an application to Massachusetts, where she was born (cost: $28). She returned to the BMV, only to be told that her birth certificate had her maiden name, not her married name. She had to get a certified copy of her marriage certificate and return a fourth time.
I absolutely refuse to believe that a woman lived to the ripe old age of 78 in this country, and had not obtained a photo ID yet. Right or wrong, you can’t even fart in this country without a Photo ID.
If there’s one, and only one, reason for the government to demand a verifiable photo identification, it would be to exercise your right to select who’s going to run the government.
It’s getting to the point where even dead people will be denied the right to vote.
So she mailed an application to Massachusetts, where she was born (cost: $28). She returned to the BMV, only to be told that her birth certificate had her maiden name, not her married name. She had to get a certified copy of her marriage certificate and return a fourth time.
If Theresa Clemente wanted to save herself a lot of hassle, she could have gone to the BMV website or called them direct and determined in advance exactly what documentation she would need, and brought it with her the first time. It is her own fault it took four trips. The rules are pretty clear cut.
The law also places burdens on voters ages 18 to 25. Many have recently moved to Indiana for college and either do not have a driver's license or have one from their parents' home state. At Indiana University alone, 14,000 students come from other states. Indiana makes it very difficult for these new residents, who should be able to vote at the polls where they live and where local laws affect them. The state doesn't allow voters to show student IDs, or other common forms of ID.
Berkeley, California, that bastion of progressivism and activism, is always very careful to schedule local primaries for the Summer months, when most students are away...
Students should run down to the DMV the first week of school and transfer their DL to their school address. It is silly to keep a DL from someplace where you don't live, and it can only lead to problems.
I support ID at the polls. It seems like on busy days fraud could rear it's ugly head.
In the four times I have worked, we have had 30-70% turnout. We're told no ID required. We've had no problem. People come in and say their names. The system is that if there is a duplicate we would have a problem, because the previous person could be the fraud. So ID could prevent that, even though I haven't seen it.
If the person is not on the list, we can let them vote provisional and we do check ID because the registrar has to confirm the vote in the next 2-3 days. We have 6-20 of those on a given day. Some are registered at other polls and they just came into the wrong place.
The issue about constitutionality is a ridiculous one. How could we have a system where we let you vote and don't know if you were supposed to. That position is ridiculous and the court did the right thing, no matter how many problems there are.