Supreme Insight

What was most troubling for me about the Supreme Court decision to uphold Indiana's voting identification law was that three justices actually dissented.

As I do with any issue, I searched for arguments on the side against the law, which simply requires voters to present a photo ID when they arrive at the precinct to vote in an election. If someone shows up without a photo ID, they can cast a provisional ballot, which will be counted as long as the individual shows up at the courthouse within 10 days to prove they are who they claim and are indeed eligible to vote. In addition, anyone who doesn't have a drivers licence may obtain a free photo ID from the BMV with proof of citizenship.

The ACLU and their Democrat Party allies brought the suit against Indiana, claiming it would disenfranchise a substantial number of poor voters who don't have a valid photo ID.

Naturally, my question for them was, who exactly? I searched in vain for an answer to that simple question. The only people I could think of that could possibly be affected negatively by the law are the Amish, who have a religious objection to having their photos taken. Since Indiana dealt with that issue long ago when it came up in a licensing law for their buggies, I'm pretty sure the Amish issue is addressed. Even if it's not, my knowledge of the Amish would seem to indicate they would be more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, so I'm also pretty sure the ACLU wasn't trying to protect their voting rights.

So the court essentially said that there was no evidence presented that identified a single voter who was unreasonably denied their right to vote because of this law.

News reports also said there also was very little evidence presented suggesting any widespread voter fraud, which the voter ID law was designed to stop. I am curious about that, but suspect the reason is because any effort to find voter fraud is certain to result in angry charges of "disenfranchisement" and "harrassment".

Stories have abounded here in Indiana for years about busloads of people in Indianapolis and Gary and East Chicago being ferried around to the various precincts by Democrat Party officials. According to the stories, at each precinct, each person on the bus is handed a name, which is the name they assume when they enter and sign in at the precinct. They cast their votes and move on to the next precinct, where the process is repeated.

Also often repeated are the stories about Democrats registering illegal immigrants and taking them to the polls to vote as well. Poll workers often report hispanics who obviously can't speak English signing in and voting. It's not too difficult to figure out that someone who can't speak English is almost certainly not a citizen.

So the only reasonable conclusion I can reach is that the real objection to Indiana's voter ID law is that these longtime Democrat practices of fraudulent voting will be mostly stopped.

Which is the reason I'm very troubled that 3 Supreme Court justices actually dissented. What that tells me is that those 3 justices could care less about the constitution or rule of law, and are unqualified to hold their positions on the court.

Just a brief reminder to those who are ready to vote for Hillary or Barack; those 3 unqualified justices will almost certainly be joined by 2 to 3 more just like them within the next few years should either of those Democrats win the Presidency. If they can't get a clear-cut ruling like this one right, imagine what havoc they can create for our country if they are able to become the majority of the court.