Unlike Indiana, many states do not require an ID to vote. Generally each time they try to implement such a rule, they get slammed by lawsuits.
Most of the time the argument against is that this somehow inconveniences or disenfranchises the minority voter....Despite the fact that anyone who works (legally), has a bank account, cashes a check, gets government assistance or ever needs to go into a government building must have an ID document issued by the state to do so.
But to vote? Oh, No, that'd be an inconvenience and a hardship to require an ID.
But, believe it or not, the 9th (yeah, that one) Court of Appeals finds that there is no evidence of the undue hardship or burden for anyone, especially minority voters.
We are winning. Slowly, and with a great struggle, but we are winning. This is precedent setting.
I guess that the DNC will have to find another way to cheat soon.
4 comments:
Hell froze over with that ruling from the 9th.
This is the way we win, incrementalism- the same way the left got where it is.
I have to pay for the class, pay for my own background check, get fingerprinted, provide a copy of my birth certificate and my military records, carry a card and a photo ID at all times.
I do those things to carry a firearm, a right protected under the Constitution. Aren't those things an undue hardship? Shouldn't I be able to treat my 2nd Amendment rights the same way I treat my voting rights?
What the Dem-Cong are saying, is that minorities are too stupid to procure appropriate ID even when the state provides it for free.
Apparently, the right side of the aisle has more faith in the wisdom of minorities than does the left.
MAJ Mike
Post a Comment