A ruling by a divided Supreme Court that allows states to ask voters for a photo ID drew sharp reaction yesterday from the presidential campaign trail to the streets of Philadelphia, where the decision was blasted by the Democratic Party boss.
"What is most disturbing about the Court's decision today is the complete lack of any evidence that the legislation serves any purpose other than making it more difficult for some to vote," said U.S. Rep. Bob Brady, also local Democratic leader. He'd filed a brief with the High Court seeking to overturn the photo law in Indiana.
Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court's 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana's strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved.
The ruling means the ID requirement will be in effect for next week's presidential primary in Indiana, where a significant number of new voters are expected to turn out for the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
"I disagree with the decision, but we're going to do everything we can in our campaign — I trust that not only the Democratic Party but fair-minded Republicans are going to do whatever they can — so that people at the state level can exercise the franchise," Obama said. Clinton said he had "questions" about the ruling, but now it's the law.
Supporters of the law say it's all about preventing fraud. (H/T - The Philadelphia Daily News)
And as a police detective living in America's Home for Voter Fraud, I have seen firsthand what kind of shenanigans people can try when they go to the polls. Nowadays, it's easy to get a photo ID - and everyone should have some form of photo ID anyway - so I don't see the problem with this ruling.
Of course, I am sure there are plenty of people who disagree with the common sense of it all.