Originally Posted by devildog2067
I did quite a bit of research about this, because I sincerely hoped there was a reason for this decision.
The legal test (and I'm not a lawyer/expert, so anyone who knows better than I feel free to correct me) has two parts: a) does the law solve a real problem and b) does the law apply unequally to different groups. From what I could tell, voter ID laws fail both parts. A number of studies (done by groups sponsored by both parties) seem to have shown that voter fraud is a statistically insignificant problem, and poor/elderly/young people are less likely to have government ID than other people.
If I understand correctly, if voter fraud was a serious enough problem, the compelling interest of a) could override b), but no one has yet to prove that a) is a serious (statistically speaking) problem. There have only been a handful of cases of voter fraud prosecuted across the country since 2000.
What a load of horses#$&.
Voter fraud in Chicago and TX may have thrown the race to Kennedy. It can change an election. So, no there is nothing insignificant about it. It IS a compelling interest. Your cite of "both parties" is without attribution, so I'll count it as nonsense.
Elections should be free and fair. Its not fair if its rife with cheating.
It does not apply unequally. EVERYONE SHOWS ID. Period. No exceptions. Not buying the nonsense about ID's being "unaffordable" either. How in hell can you go thru society and not be able to prove who you are?
Again, you're not
opening a bank account,
driving a car
boarding an airplane
buying a gun
Getting a job!
Without some form of ID.
Its a specious argument and a red herring. A ruse to help those committing voter fraud. Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining.