I’m a Candidate Who Represents People With No Faces
alexbalk: I used to be disgusted, but now I’m just — actually, I’m still disgusted.
The Indiana law was challenged in separate suits filed by the Indiana Democratic Party and by another group of plaintiffs that included elected officials and community groups. The plaintiffs argued that the state had failed to justify a requirement they said would place a special burden on thousands of eligible voters in Indiana who lack driver’s licenses, a group that disproportionately includes the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities.
The plaintiffs lost, both in Federal District Court in Indianapolis and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago. Writing for the 2-to-1 majority at the appeals court, Judge Richard A. Posner agreed with the plaintiffs that the law would have the greatest impact on people who were “low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates.” While that fact gave the Democratic Party standing to sue, he said, it did not make the law unconstitutional.
What’s correct about that Indiana voting ID Supreme Court decision is that, while it will prevent people from voting, it does not do so in an unconstitutional way. It really has nothing to do with true justice or fairness; the Constitution aspires to be fair and just, yet is a document as human as its creators (it even needs amendments from time-to-time) and it occasionally does not serve all its followers fairly. The Supreme Court only decides on the consistency of laws to the Constitution as it stands, not on whether or not the laws or Constitution themselves are fair or have unfair loopholes. Is a youth curfew fair? Is the drinking age fair? Is the smoking ban fair?
But you knew this already. I’m just pointing this out because I find it strange that people are criticizing the SC decision, not the state of Indiana for having the law in the first place.
Moving onto that: what’s wrong with the law? I think it’s pretty equitable and useful (voter fraud is a serious problem). Have you seen any rich people lately? Many of them are so addled and drunk half the time (they’re just like us!) that I’m sure it’s just as burdensome to them to obtain government photo ID as it is for people who have less wealth. They go to the same DMV that we do! As it is, wealth is not the problem - it is mental capacity that presents the issue. For brevity’s sake (not to be un-PC) you have to be retarded to misunderstand the law and/or have your life so out-of-order as to not have a photo ID in the year 2008.
I don’t feel - actually, I’m strongly against the idea - that society should aspire to make all things functional to the dysfunctional. Because then society itself would be completely dysfunctional (and not just partially). Reasonable accommodations are great things - handicapped ramps, websites that are friendly to color-blind and fully-blind browsers, etc. Unreasonable situations - a citizen, given plenty of prior notice, with a birth certificate and Social Security number who chose not to obtain a drivers’ license, passport or government-issued ID - are probably best left aside.
It says a lot about the Democrats that they find these sort of people strategically important in elections. It puts them at a disadvantage if they can’t get that all important pants-crappingly dysfunctional demographic. (Though I like to be equitable too, I can’t come up with a counteracting swipe at Republicans on this matter. And I really tried hard!) Also, there’s nothing stopping Democrats from sponsoring photo ID initiatives for the disenfranchsed to help resolve the issue of people-not-voting. Unlike some disgustingly long legal process that lines the pockets of the lawyers and judges, that sort of thing might actually help people.