What if you had your i.d., but were run over by a beer truck on the way to vote?

What if you had your i.d., but had a heart attack on the way to vote?

What if, what if, what if.

Lets just be glad that cooler heads prevailed in the Supreme Court and that all people will have to prove that they are who they say they are before they get to vote.

People who have previously registered to vote should be allowed to cast a vote. Should it be challanged, the vote should not count and an opportunity is given to comply with the regulations. The cooler heads voted for disenfranchisement, period.

that way; David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. As for the "challenging" execise are you saying if an ID is not presented then the vote is held in situ until ID is verified?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

The phrase I was too lazy to look up. Yes, that is what I meant.

I liked the lower court's ruling upholding it before the appeal to the Supreme Court where the judge stated that it didn't matter if those affected happened to seemingly be only Democrats, nor did it matter what the intent was of the Repubs who are pushing voter ID requirements in a lot of states.

This is a Democrat problem, not a voting rights issue.

Disenfranchisement or disfranchisement is the revocation of, or failure to grant, the right of suffrage (the right to vote) to a person or group of people. Disfranchisement may occur explicitly through law, or implicitly through means such as intimidation.

Please correct me if I am mistaken. It is a big word. The picture ID is not the problem. Taking away the right to vote is.

How could it not be a voting rights issue?

No one's right to vote was taken away. This is not the same as a ruling that "you've been convicted of a felony, you are not allowed to vote any longer." Applying the condition of identification to voting is not the same as taking away the right to vote. Over 20 states already require a form of identification for voting pre-Supremes ruling, and all this ruling did was confirm that requiring a picture ID as identification is constitutional.

Now, the application of this post-ruling COULD be used to try and disenfranchise voters if a state puts up barriers on how a picture ID can be obtained, the cost, the timing, etc., but the ruling in and of itself doesn't take away anyone's right to vote.

If someone is registered to vote, then they have a right to cast that vote. Verifying that the vote was cast legally and having it be counted is what the ID issue should be all about. The potential for abuse of the right to vote is far lower when a vote is cast that is subject to verification, vs denying the vote in the first place.

LATER:
Correction: The Indiana law does allow for a provisional ballot to be cast that must be verified within 10 days, during working hours. The problem with the ID law is the burden that it places on people to get a photo ID, which may seem trivial to most but not to those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Another unfunded mandate perhaps? It is as NUK states, a Democratic problem, and therefore, it will behove the party to assist people in getting the required ID.

a picture ID should be required for something as important as this.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.