SCOTUS To Hear Indiana Voting Law – Opponents Prove Why Law Works

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.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “SCOTUS To Hear Indiana Voting Law – Opponents Prove Why Law Works”

  1. John Ryan says:

    The fewer Americans that are allowed to vote the more likely the Republicans are to win. Getting rid of any “undesirable” voters improves their chances.

  2. Silke says:

    John, in this day and age of increasingly close elections voter fraud is a much bigger problem then the possibility of disenfranchised voters. If the concern is that a certain portion of the electorate will have a hard time getting a photo ID (which most people need just to cash a check these days), then why not argue for better access to photo ID’s?

    Even Jimmy Carter supports more stringent voter identification requirements:

    That sweeping support helps explain why, in 2005, 18 of 21 members of a bipartisan federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of photo ID requirements more stringent than Indiana’s. “Voters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their rights,” the commission stated. Mr. Carter feels strongly about voter fraud. In his book, “Turning Point,” he wrote of his race for Georgia State Senate in 1962, which involved a corrupt local sheriff who had cast votes for the dead. It took a recount and court intervention before Mr. Carter was declared the winner.

  3. John, what Silke said.

    Seriously, I do not get why you liberals do not want to verify who is voting so as to avoid fraud. Y’all keep yammering on about stopping fraud, what better way then by asking for ID? Or is it that you libs are simply establishing a meme about fraud in order to blame others for what you actually support and attempt to do?

  4. joated says:

    Every illegal vote that is cast disenfranchises someone who voted the opposite. Doesn’t matter which party the illegal vote was cast for. What matters is ensuring that each vote that is cast is a valid, legal vote.

  5. a says:

    “surrender monkeys” lol eat a bag of dicks you fucking retard. America would be a lot better off right now if it surrendered a bit more often.

  6. Excellent point, joated.

    Goody, a typical liberal personal assault by “a.” Figures.

Bad Behavior has blocked 12150 access attempts in the last 7 days.