|
Re: Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere
As I said, I wouldn't find a voter IDs law invalid under the setup Indiana has done because it does not result in a person having to pay a fee, face unrelated barriers to getting the required IDs, and allow voting at the polls without IDs with a provisional ballot that will count so long as the person proves their identity shortly after the election day, which in turn covers those who lost, forgot or did not know about the ID requirement.
I think it's imperative to remember that these laws do not concern a privilege or mere liberty interest but a fundamental right. Laws must be strictly construed so they do not act to deprive people of that right.
|
So you are attempting to show that requiring all voters to prove they are who they say they are is a defacto "poll tax"?  If a person cannot afford a drivers license or a state ID, then they probably will not be voting anyway so you are essentially fighting a battle that needs not be fought. How many indigent people actually vote? I say screw em. It should be mandatory that all voters PROVE that they are who they say they are. A birth certificate, a passport, a voter ID card, a state issued Drivers license, a State issued ID card, are all acceptable to reasonable people. But if a few loony ACLU types want to get upset about this, then we should pass a federal law creating a federal voter ID card that is free to anyone who applies, in lieu of the above requirements. Then these ACLU types can shove their "Poll tax" where it doesn't shine. 
__________________
I think at this point there needs to be a focus on an immediate increase in spending and I think this is a time when deficit fear has to take a second seat . . . I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money."
-- Barney Frank, October 20, 2008
|