Reply #4: K&R(#3). Good catch. IMO, preventing this kind of partisan attack on voting rights [View All]

[ProgressiveEconomist]

in the future would best be accomplished by a replacement for the "Help America Vote Act" with MANDATORY national standards and goals for fair elections.

In particular, as Carter-Baker Commission dissenter Prof. Spencer Overton declared, every potential state "improvement" in voting rules must be forced to pass a cost-benefit analysis test. If the purported "improvement" would deter more legitimate votes than the number of fraudulent votes it reasonably could be expected to prevent, it CANNOT be allowd to stand.

The three justices who voted "NO" to upholding the Indiana lower-court ruling applied the kind of cost-benefit analysis I'm suggesting. See the GD thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3223625 for links.