Law Professor Althouse asks, "So?"
In the comments are a lot of thoughts about why it is important, although the first comment is:
We would first have to pretend there is such a thing as an "impartial judge" to make this an issue, so I understand Ann's "so?"Ouch!
Then, further down, about 2:46 PM, comparing rights:
As I understand the theory, it's that showing a picture ID is an unreasonably burdensome obstacle in the way of exercising a constitutional right.OK, so maybe it is a bit over the top, but it is questions like this that put the issue into some context.
I reflected on that this past weekend when I purchased a pistol at a gunshow. Not only did I need to show a picture ID, but I had to fill out a lengthy questionnaire and wait for the feds to clear me over the phone.
There are people who may not lawfully own firearms. There are people who may not lawfully vote. Why are there different standards for exercising the two rights? Let's hear it for instant background checks for voters.
In Wisconsin, as of 2002, there were some 222,000 eligible voters who lacked ID. That would be just over 5% of the voting age population. I find the number to be surprisingly high, but I then wonder why this large percentage. The data is from a study by Professor John Pawasarat, used in arriving at the decision to issue a temporary injunction.
Finally, who are these people who have no ID and yet wish to vote? They appear to live in a phone booth and not cash checks or use credit cards. Do people bring them food? Are they part of the homeless, and if so, are they not part of the statistical gathering operation, and how does Lowell keep from double counting them, or not counting them at all.
People conjure up our past history of denying Blacks, Irish, sailors and others the right to vote. Today that list is pretty much down to sailors.
Regards — Cliff