"Mich. Supreme Court Weighs Requiring ID To Vote'
I hope that the logic of the claims over photo ID disenfranchising voters will be really questioned. There is no attempt to link up the people without ID to see if they would get IDs or whether they wouldn't vote even if they did have an ID. Those who don't have a driver license or other photo ID might not feel that they need one. Look at Mexico. You had a huge percentage of the population taking the time under very trying conditions to get a photo ID to vote when they had to do so.
. . . No form of identification is now required to vote in Michigan.
The high court has agreed to issue an advisory opinion requested by the Republican-controlled state House, which means both sides of the issue were argued by Attorney General Mike Cox's office on Monday.
Assistant Attorney General Susan Leffler said requiring photo ID is a small burden for voters who often are asked to show ID in their everyday lives. She argued that making those without an ID sign an affidavit isn't much to ask to help prevent fraud and ensure confidence in the electoral process.
"I can't imagine a less minimal burden," Leffler said.
But Assistant Attorney General Ron Robinson said the law, which he called a "wolf in sheep's clothing," could harm 350,000 registered voters who don't have a driver's license or state-issued ID card. The law would automatically subject voters without identification to a challenge -- an inconvenient and embarrassing delay, Robinson said.
"This is an extreme response to a problem that does not exist in Michigan," he said of the ID requirement.
In response to a question from Justice Michael Cavanagh, Leffler acknowledged there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud but rather a "concern" about it.
Some justices on the GOP-controlled court questioned whether voters having to submit affidavits would automatically be challenged under the law. Justice Stephen Markman also said lawmakers have wanted to give registered voters who don't have an ID a state-issued card free of charge.
"Is it too much of a burden to get a free ID card and remember to bring it to the polls?" Markman asked. . . .
The high court has agreed to issue an advisory opinion requested by the Republican-controlled state House, which means both sides of the issue were argued by Attorney General Mike Cox's office on Monday.
Assistant Attorney General Susan Leffler said requiring photo ID is a small burden for voters who often are asked to show ID in their everyday lives. She argued that making those without an ID sign an affidavit isn't much to ask to help prevent fraud and ensure confidence in the electoral process.
"I can't imagine a less minimal burden," Leffler said.
But Assistant Attorney General Ron Robinson said the law, which he called a "wolf in sheep's clothing," could harm 350,000 registered voters who don't have a driver's license or state-issued ID card. The law would automatically subject voters without identification to a challenge -- an inconvenient and embarrassing delay, Robinson said.
"This is an extreme response to a problem that does not exist in Michigan," he said of the ID requirement.
In response to a question from Justice Michael Cavanagh, Leffler acknowledged there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud but rather a "concern" about it.
Some justices on the GOP-controlled court questioned whether voters having to submit affidavits would automatically be challenged under the law. Justice Stephen Markman also said lawmakers have wanted to give registered voters who don't have an ID a state-issued card free of charge.
"Is it too much of a burden to get a free ID card and remember to bring it to the polls?" Markman asked. . . .
posted by John Lott at 10:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home