Serenipidy? Irony? Coincidental? You decide
On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.
Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also
claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.
Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she¹s never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.
Subsequently, Ewing became a sort-of poster child for the opposition when the Indiana League of Women Voters (ILWV) told media that the problems Ewing had voting that day shows why the high court should strike it down.
But Indiana Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita said Monday that Ewing’s tale illustrates exactly why Indiana needs the law. “This shows that the Indiana ID law worked here, which also calls into question why the critics are so vehemently against this law, especially with persons like this, who may not have a legal right to vote in this election,” Rokita said.
Exactly. Liberals/progressives/surrender monkeys have been yapping about voter fraud since 2000 (except, of course, when they won in 2006), yet, they oppose any measure that identifies whether a voter is legally allowed to vote. Has the person already voted? Can they vote in that State? Are they even allowed to vote, being a non-USA citizen or a convicted felon? Perhaps this is what they mean by their meme of “count every vote (except the military).”
It’s a long article, but well worth the read. The only thing I would add is, I just do not get the opposition to positively identifying who a voter actually is. It is not a poll tax, it doesn’t disenfranchise actual voters, and it harms no one. Obviously, though, liberal opponents of making sure someone is legally allowed to vote have ulterior motives.
See more at Memeorandum.
Hot Air is covering.
Jay at Stop The ACLU says that the ACLU is going to defend voter fraud all the way to the Supreme Court.
HEY!!!! Cassandra at Villainous Company is back (apparently for awhile), and does her always awesome villainous snarking on this subject.
