I was just joking. The NY Times did a story about how few people actually are without photo ID, .03%. Not enough to alter most elections. They were using the stat as a reason to tell Republicans that this legislation wouldn't affect voting. I prefer to turn that around. If laws demanding photo ID are already in place and most Americans think they are fair, leave them in place.
Even the blue state of Pennsylvania passed voter ID laws.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
FredHayek wrote: Even the blue state of Pennsylvania passed voter ID laws.
Is THIS the "Pennsylvania" that you are referring to:
Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Trial Set To Begin As State Concedes It Has No Proof Of In-Person Voter Fraud
Pennsylvania's Voter ID Law Will Not Be Enforced While Trial Judge Deliberates
You mean THAT Pennsylvania?...The one that's being sued by the DoJ?
I have no idea what Holder thinks he is going to do about it. The Supreme Court has already ruled that such laws are constitutional and Pennsylvania isn't on the list of States that are subjected to federal oversight on voter laws.
In a 6-3 decision in 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence.
Justice John Paul Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud. Stevens wrote in the majority:
"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[2] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v ... tion_Board
And we all know what a right wing nut job Justice John Paul Stevens is, don't we?
