**Supreme Court upholds voter identification laws.** JUST IN TIME FOR Indiana

[MagickMuffin]

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that “states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.” The case concerned Indiana’s voter ID law, the most restrictive in the nation, and comes just one week before the state’s presidential primary. More than 20 states currently require some form of ID at the polls. More on how these voter ID laws disenfranchise Americans.

In their concurring opinion, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito argued that burdens on voters caused by the voter ID law are "minimal and justified." But for the sake of clarity and finality (as well as adherence to precedent), I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners’ premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.

Justice Stevens acknowledged, "The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history."


SPREAD THE WORD....

[RoadRage]

1. So who does this favor in the IND primary - Clinton or Obama?

I know in a GE - it favors republicans... but with Indiana, i'm not sure?

[MagickMuffin]

2. If I had to guess, which I do, I would think it would favor Clinton more than Obama

but that's just a guess.:shrug:

You don't think it would favor one candidate over another?.?.?

[quantass]

3. It would favor Obama more than Clinton

All one needs is to look back at PA and see very fishy activity in favor of Clinton.

[RoadRage]

4. I'll make a guess at my own question...

I think it might help Obama slightly. I'm going to guess that those most likely to vote without ID are hispanic, and those trend twoards Clinton? Just a guess.. i don't know if it will matter all that much anyway.

[MagickMuffin]

5. I hope my predication was wrong then

I thought it would be to Clinton's advantage.