http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3361882Here we have another example of the little goons screaming and tearing flesh over simple precautions which help eliminate voter fraud. This is strange behavior for folks who claim every election a democrat loses is "stolen". One would think these simple precautions would not only be applauded, one would think the precautions would be the little goons' idea.
One would think it would be the Republicans, who the little goons always insist are vote cheaters, would be the ones trying to kill each and every common sense provision which comes along in order to continue their cheating ways.
This issue is upside down. Certainly I am not, since I am not all that smart, the only one who sees the hypocrisy and phoniness inside the little goons' hollow protest.
Newsjock (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-21-08 12:28 AM
Original message
Indiana voter ID law challenged again
Source: Indianapolis Star
A requirement for Indiana voters to show their photo ID at the polls isn’t only a hassle, it’s unconstitutional, the League of Women Voters of Indiana is arguing.
The league, taking its case to court, filed a lawsuit against the Indiana Secretary of State in Marion County Superior Court on Friday, less than two months after the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to allow the 2005 law to stand.
“This is a challenge under Indiana’s constitution. It has different language and is interpreted in different ways†than the federal laws that were considered by the Supreme Court, said Karen Celestino-Horseman, an attorney representing the league and a former Indianapolis City-County Council member.
... The law, according to the state, is necessary to keep people from voting using other people’s names. However, the high court, in issuing its ruling earlier this year, did not find Indiana had experienced the type of voter fraud feared by state officials.
Read more: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2008..
.
Tutonic (78 posts) Sat Jun-21-08 01:40 AM
Response to Original message
3. Thank you League of Women Voters
You'd think that Emily's List and other groups would have been at the forefront since they were all over the state pushing for Clinton during the primary. This photo ID law in Indiana like Ohio is aimed at disenfranchising black voters. It is not aimed at whites, hispanics or other groups. If it succeeds in Indiana, look for it to spread to other states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri, etc., where there are pockets of black voters.
Are we to believe black people do not photograph? Or are we to believe that black people wander through life without the simple tools of society, the tools the rest of us have, such as a driver's license and a birth certificate?
Isn't that racist and insulting? Do the little goons want everyone to believe black folks can't handle life? That kind of thinking (propaganda) surely doesn't help their presidential candidate.
We know the possibility exists that B. Hussein Obama doesn't have an American birth certificate. Can we assume he has no form of ID at all?
Enthusiast (591 posts) Sat Jun-21-08 06:02 AM
Original message
The Indiana voter I.D. law
Serves one purpose. We all know what it is.
I often ask Republicans ",What kind of country do you want to live in?" I guess they want a country where their side is always guaranteed a victory. But that is not a democracy.
The supreme court was mistaken in ruling in behalf of this law to start with. Photography didn't even exist when our constitution was written. How is it constitutional to require photo I.D.s? I guess those that ruled in favor of the new law are not the strict constructionists we always hear about. Republicans have made a mockery of my country!
Ah ha! Here's a new angle! Since modern photography did not exist in colonial times, requiring photo ID is unconstitutional! Oh, what a can of worms!
Mockery indeed!
