Random-American

For anyone who’s truly interested in preventing voter fraud, this is outstanding news.  However, since Democrats are more likely to benefit from not requiring an ID to vote, they’re naturally not pleased.

From AP via Yahoo!News:

States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

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…

…

Supporters of the law say it’s all about preventing fraud.

Indiana has a “valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” said Justice John Paul Stevens in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Stevens said that Indiana’s desire to prevent fraud and to inspire voter confidence in the election system are important even though there have been no reports of the kind of fraud the law was designed to combat. Evidence of voters being inconvenienced by the law’s requirements also is scant. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver’s license serves as the identification.

…

The Indiana law was passed in 2005. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed it as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage groups of voters who tend to prefer Democrats.

The next time you hear a Democrat say they want to preserve the integrity of an election, remind them who it was that was against voters verifying their identity.

See more at MM..

This entry was posted on Monday, April 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm and is filed under All Posts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.