Photo ID
MANIFESTO
Apparently Democrats are up in arms about yesterday's Supreme Court decision regarding photo id at polling places. Now, while I understand that this could be seen as a sneaky way to "disenfranchise poorer, Democratic-leaning voters," I just don't see it as a major problem, and here's why: For the last number of years, I've been asked for a driver's license to substantiate my identity where I vote. Connecticut's driver's licenses just happen to have the owner's picture on them, so, as far as I'm concerned, I've been asked for photo id at the polls for some time. There certainly are other ways to disenfranchise voters that have been used with great success by the Bushies in the last two presidential elections; I don't think they—or others of their ilk—need to use a photo id strategy for more larcenies.
Or, am I being naive here?
posted by monocle at 4/29/2008 09:29:00 AM
1 Comments:
people in cities are way more likely to not have driver's licenses?
(though people should have photo ID's anyway, but the driver's license is good enough doesn't work for a good chunk of people, and those people by and large will live in cities)
Post a Comment
<< Home