Supreme Court to Hear Case on Voter ID Law

[M14 Shooter]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — With the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections on the horizon, the Supreme Court agreed today to consider whether voter-identification laws unfairly keep poor people and members of minority groups from going to the polls.

The justices will hear arguments from an Indiana case, in which a federal district judge and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in January upheld a state law requiring, with certain exceptions, that someone wanting to vote in person in a primary or general election present a government-issued photo identification. Presumably, the court would rule on the case by June.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/w...8a3644969f66d7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

So what do you think -- should voters be required to present a valid ID before they can vote?

Or does such a thing disenfranchise citizens who are otherwise qualified to vote, placing too much of a burden on voters?

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think they should have to present ID to vote.

Perhaps they should present ID to approach voting locations, however....just enough to validate citizenship but not to be run or anything...though I don't know what that would be.

Sheesh, we've come to an age when you have to carry a certified birth certificate or passport on your person at all times.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

To vote one must be registered, there is no reason a law can ot be enacted to VERIFY identity of those voting. Without it the law to register is useless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Anyone else?

Does requiring an ID to vote create an undue burden on the right to vote?