|
Listen, Host, the arguments at the Supreme Court went something like this (and if you don't follow the legal arguments, ask and I'll explain how the concepts work). Bear in mind, this is a LEGAL issue, not an issue of whether an ID requirement is good public policy:
1. a state legislature is entitled to deal with what it perceives to be a problem
2. state statutes are usually evaluated in terms of whether they are rationally related to a legitimate purpose
3. the plaintiffs here brought a facial challenge to the statute rather than an "as applied" challenge, which means they have to show that the statute necessarily burdens the exercise of a basic right. (In an "as applied" challenge, they'd have someone who was denied the right to vote on grounds of lack of ID.)
4. the facts in the record about the extent of the burden don't appear to show substantial burdens on substantial numbers.
The issue is not whether requiring IDs are a good idea - it's whether requiring photo ID is permissible under the constitution.
I will stipulate for purposes of this argument that the law was passed for the purpose of helping Republicans. But that doesn't invalidate the legislation any more than pro-union legislation should be invalidated because it helps Democrats. Political parties want to win elections for a reason, and among the reasons is that they get to reward their friends, punish their enemies, and try to perpetuate themselves in power. Welcome to the real world. The constitution contemplates political games, and it expects that if people aren't happy with the things their representatives do, that they will toss the bums out in the next election -- pretty much as they did in November 2006.
|