Disenfranchising Voters - the Supreme Court states the obvious

The Supreme Court made an obvious decision yesterday that asking voters for identification does not cause an undue burden or restrict a voters right to participate in the democratic process in this country. New Jersey needs to pass legislation requiring that voters are legitimate residents and eligible to vote and requiring proof thereof. This state does not have a good record regarding ensuring that legitimate voters make it to the polls (does anyone still remember Corizne's operators paying for votes with cigarettes a few years ago?) and ineligible votes are not cast.

Of course, key Democrats immediately cried 'voter disenfranchisement'. I have some news for these people. If you are walking around with no identification today, you have far more serious problems than voting. As a matter of fact, I seriously doubt that anyone could produce a legitimate non-id carrying voter who would be hurt by laws like these (the Supreme Court said as much in the Indiana decision).

The real issue here is the use of lax rules to encourage voter fraud in cities. This encouragement comes primarily from the Democratic party. So the people really hurt in this process are legitimate voters who have their votes cancelled by individuals who should not be voting either in this state or in any state. That is the dirty little secret behind voter identification laws and those who oppose them.

---