WHOSE DISENFRANCHISEMENT IS THIS ANYWAY?
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for and against Indiana’s Voter ID law. You know the routine. Proponents says it’s necessary to protect the voting process. Opponents say it disenfranchises the poor (even though you need a photo ID to get poor relief in any township in Marion County), minorities and the elderly, even though they never brought one plaintiff who was denied the right to vote. If opponents of voter ID want to find disenfranchised voters, I know where they can get at least 3100.
There were the 3100 who were disenfranchised when their polling places didn’t open during the May 2007 primary. You remember that fiasco, don’t you? You remember when several polling places either opened late or didn’t open at all? You remember when more than 3100 voters were disenfranchised because the Clerk’s Office didn’t do it’s job by having the necessary manpower? Of course you do! Well, could you do a brotha’ a favor and go sue somebody on their behalf? I think they will be easier to find than the voters who were “disenfranchised” because of Voter ID.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:18 am
US Supreme Court, not Indiana Supreme Court.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
That’s what he wrote, “The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday for and against Indiana’s Voter ID law.”
January 10th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
It seems to me that the subtext of this whole debate is that Democratic voters are somehow inherently irresponsible, dumb, and/or lazy. Is fighting this case more insulting to those who are claimed to be negatively effected more insulting than the law itself?
January 10th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
IRRELEVANT, Abdul!
An inexperienced person in charge who flubs her job once is in no way, shape or form the same category of miscreant as a government that permanently places unnecessary burdens on citizens wishing to cast their votes!
January 10th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Snark,
Are you saying it’s ok for polling places not to open as long as it’s an accident?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Voter disenfranchisement in all forms (including incompetence or mistake) is equally wrong. However, Abdul you should be aware that this type of mistake happened as well under Doris Anne (ask Phil Borst). Personally, I think the whole idea of not keeping polls open for 12 hours regardless of if that means 2 hours after 6PM, 3 hours, or the entire following day is completely wrong. I also disagree with the current evaluation that ‘only if it affects or could have affected the election result’ do the courts consider revotes or extended hours. If there is one thing we should fully fund before anything else it is the people’s right to participate equally and fairly in the democratic process. A revote or extended hours should have happened in the Franklin twp. precincts with the Borst primary and should have happened in this Primary.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
erin = poppycock.
the state has no business even being involved in primaries. it’s not in the constitution. parties were not even foreseen as major players by jefferson. what does it matter how a party nominates its candidate ?
the ONLY reason the school board elections are held in may is so the 2 parties can con the state (taxpayers) into paying for the primaries.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:25 am
It’s in our state law (if you don’t like that then have the law changed or challenge it as unconstitutional, but simply stating it’s not in the constitution does not make it unconstitutional) and it should be budgeted for at the county level, not the state, through the Clerk’s Office.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Our founding fathers had substantially divergent views on many issues, not just elections. Check your history on Jefferson by the way. “The constitution is for the living, not the dead.” A very well known quote. You might also want to see his views on the constitutional amending process and particularly WHY he thought that way. Have fun, it’s all quite fascinating.