Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Indiana Democrats sue state over photo ID voting requirement

My first reaction when I read the headline was "Wow! They have Democrats in Indiana?"

From the story:
The lawsuit claims the law, which is among the strictest in the nation, violates the U.S. Constitution and federal voting laws. It is slated to take effect July 1.

Critics say requiring a photo ID at the polls unfairly affects the poor, minorities, people with disabilities and the elderly, many of whom do not have driver's licenses and might struggle to obtain a photo ID.
Where to begin here?

First of all, there's nothing in the Constitution that the left can point to here. What language could possibly be interpreted by a liberal judicial activist as finding this law unconstitutional?

Secondly, Democrats are almost exclusively the ones who are perpetrating vote fraud. The elections of 1960 (Nixon ballot machines found at the bottom of Lake Michigan, "new" ballots found in Texas), 2000 (Gore giving homeless Wisconsinites cigs to go vote in a state he won by 5000 votes, double-voting in WI and MI, squelching military votes in FL), 2002 (dead Indians and pets in a SD Senate race won by the Democrat by 520 votes), and 2004 (see prior post about what happened in the WA governor's race) all come to mind. Dems would be less successful at vote fraud if valid photo ID was required. For them to say that they're merely concerned about the rights of minorities and the elderly is about as believable as a Michael Moore movie! I live in FL, and there's no shortage of minorities or bluehairs driving our roads! If they're driving, they have (or should have) a driver's license.

What is so damned offensive about people proving that they are who they say they are in order to guarantee "one person, one vote"? Unless one plans on cheating, there is not a damned thing wrong with requiring proof of identity. It's only fair, and sane!