Voter Supression and the Supreme Court

The old canard about dead people voting should have been put to rest long ago, but the Republican Party has long supported efforts to suppress the vote. And so, this week, the Supreme Court, but a rare 6-3 vote upheld a fairly rigid Indiana law that requires photo ID's at the polls. The Detroit Free Press -- in the state I'll soon be moving -- among others sees this for what it is a cure for a disease that never was. They also note that this will likely give other states the green light to put stringent rules for voter ID.

It is quite clear who will be most inconvenienced by this -- the elderly and the poor. And why? because of alleged cases of voter fraud. What is interesting is that in Indiana, no case of voter fraud has been prosecuted. It's not a big problem, so why focus on it? To intimidate voters that's why. What is interesting about this whole deal is that while you need a voter ID to go to the polls and vote, you don't need one to vote absentee. Now why is it that absentee voters don't need to show ID? Why are they so immune from voter fraud? Could it be that absentee voters are more likely to be . . . conservative?

These are bad laws that tend to be discriminatory and will cause all number of problems. In many cases these ID's cost money, making them essentially a poll tax. Didn't we ban them?

Marcia Ford, in her book, We The Purple comments on the effects of an especially heartless Georgia law passed in 2005.

Here's the catch: The IDs cost as much as $35, and their available only at the state's DMV offices. Much of Georgia is rural farmland, and many of those offices aren't exactly nearby. But who was expected to get to those offices? People who don't drive: the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. And then they would have to fork over $35 for the privilege of voting, a privilege no one else has to pay for. (We the Purple, Tyndale, p. 74).

Indeed! Let the people of America vote! What do the politicians fear?