Hey - you know that part about "If you don't have either, you might be able to apply to the state to get a copy of your birth certificate, if you happened to have been born there, for just $12?" Yeah, funny thing. To get a copy of your birth certificate in Indiana you need - yup - a photo id (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/howto/w2w/indiana.htm)

The big issue is having people go out and travel to some place to register and to vote, and possibly go to a courthouse. There may or not be any fees involved. But apparently, some think all this travel is onerous, especially for people who don't have a car, access to public transportation, or endure living in rural areas far from where all these activities occur. Yet, these people somehow are able to get food to eat or they die. Obviously, some kind of arrangements are being made; these people don't live in a bubble. Plus, those who truly do have trouble getting around do have the option of using an absentee ballot, so they don't have to go to a polling station to vote. But the Indiana law has to do with people who do vote at polling stations, not absentee ballots.

My question is, what is the problem with the Supreme Court ruling or the Indiana law?

SteveIL said:

those who truly do have trouble getting around do have the option of using an absentee ballot, so they don't have to go to a polling station to vote.

As mentioned in the SCOTUS opinions, Absentee ballots are not counted by the same means as in-person, polling place votes, thus giving a different weight to the votes of those who would be forced to vote absentee due to the law.

My question is, what is the problem with the Supreme Court ruling or the Indiana law?

It seems you are wholly unfamiliar with both the law, the Constitution, and the concerns at hand here.

So, to be best answer your question, I'll strongly recommend that you read the extremely well-written and sourced dissent from Justice Souter, with which I'll happily associate myself.

His dissent, in which he eviscerates every one of defendant's positions can be read here [PDF], beginning on p. 31.

If, after reading that, you have any further, specific questions about "the problem with the Supreme Court ruling or the Indiana law," I'll be happy to speak to them.

Familiarizing yourself with the actual facts, of the actual case, and our actual Constitutionally-based rule of law will likely be of use to you here.

I'll betcha (sh)Ill Steve won't go and read that

BRAD, AGENT 99 - LISTEN UP!

Please try to get on NPR's Diane Rehm show tomorrow morning --- THAT'S WEDNESDAY --(1-800-433-8850 or drshow@wamu.org) at 10:00am EDT. She's doing an hour on the VoterID decision and will have the notorious John Fund on, as well as Doug Chapin and Wendy Weiser. I called the station as soon as I heard the announcement, especially since NPR's Nina Totenberg this morning had Thor Hearne as a source, and I was directed to leave a message on the voice mail of the producer of the segment.

Diane's ripe for a deeper understanding. This week she did a show on the documentary "Rape in the Congo", the failure of the FDA to properly inform us of the dangers of plastic bottles, veterans committing suicide, and a sympathetic hour with Jimmy Carter.

Perhaps if you call the main number of WAMU: 201-855-1200 BEFORE the show, you can make your point to be heard.

PLEASE.

AND THANKS.

BBT

If this decision disenfranchises one American voter (and it will on election day for sure) it fails.
It just shows the partisanship of the SCROTUS.
(the "R" stands for you know what).

It is nothing other than another Bush v Gore decision.

I tried to watch the 60 minutes interview with Scumelia, I couldn't finish it.

What an arrogant prick.

Brad Friedman said:

So, to be best answer your question, I'll strongly recommend that you read the extremely well-written and sourced dissent from Justice Souter, with which I'll happily associate myself.

His dissent, in which he eviscerates every one of defendant's positions can be read here [PDF], beginning on p. 31.

If, after reading that, you have any further, specific questions about "the problem with the Supreme Court ruling or the Indiana law," I'll be happy to speak to them.

I read Souter's opinion. He's nuts. He's also wrong, and his dissent doesn't eviscerate anything. Living in Indiana, those citizens with valid photo IDs are covered; those citizens without valid photo IDs are covered; those citizens who can vote through an absentee ballot are covered.

I read the following from BooMan:

Let me just give you a real life example. In 2004, when I was managing voter registration teams, almost no one I hired in North Philadelphia had a photo ID. Likewise, almost no one they went out and registered in their neighborhoods had a photo ID. Yet, we got tens of thousands of people registered to vote and then we got them to the polls. If I had faced a requirement that everyone of those voters provide an official piece of photo identification, almost none of them would have voted. Why? First of all, because they didn't have $60-$80 to spend on acquiring the identification. Second of all, even if they did, they would have had to make a special trip to the DMV, which is another part of the city.

So here is a group of people who are willing to get people without photo IDs to get registered and to get them to vote. So, why not just have these "voter registration teams" follow through on the whole process regarding provisional ballots? Besides, what BooMan says regarding the cost of a photo ID is immaterial in Indiana since voting can be done without costing anything (provisional).

Allow me to repeat myself:

Yet, these people somehow are able to get food to eat or they die. Obviously, some kind of arrangements are being made; these people don't live in a bubble.

In light of what I put in from BooMan, this is more than true. So my original question stands:

My question is, what is the problem with the Supreme Court ruling or the Indiana law?

Hey, SteveIL, ever heard of MEALS ON WHEELS? Ever heard of friends and family and neighbors who come by with a bowl of soup once a day? Ever heard of eating breakfast at home, lunch at work, and dinner on the run and not having any free time during the DAY when DVM is open? Ever heard of POOR, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE for whom an extra $20 or $40 for an ID they won't use and don't need is FOOD for their children they won't have?

This decision was writen by PARTISANS who have no comprehension of JUSTICE but a clear political goal in mind and are willing to subvert the US CONSTITION and everything GOOD to get their goals.

It is a DISGUSTING decision that shows the shallowness and fear of the Republicans in the court, just as Bush v. Gore did.

It's a pity that Rethuglicans can't trust the American people to vote, but I guess that's just how it is.

P.S. A "provisional ballot" is just another way of saying "thanks for wasting time trying to vote, but we've got this under control, and we're not going to count your vote this time around. Better luck next time."

The Rethuglicans are using every trick in the book to steal elections, including their friends on the SCOTUS.

SteveIL ...maybe I can help you. You seem to think everything is fine with provisional ballots, voterIDs' and I'm sure early voting falls in here somewhere. Ask Brad about the provisional ballots that didn't get counted in LA. Go to black box voting and look at the vids of what happened in NH with the sealed ballots.Why would the hand counted ballots go for Obama and all the computerized votes for Shrill.This is supposedly a squeaky clean state...unlike Ohio and Fl.I tried to read Justice Souters' dissent but couldn't understand the legaleeze. Kinda' doubt you can either.Sometimes WE have to stick together when in actuality we aren't too smart.

If you want your vote to count you have to bow down to those who "count" the votes.

The GOP chair and treasurer in San Diego is one of the world's original and most famous hackers.

He can get you in.

Anti-democracy activist SteveIL said:

I read Souter's opinion. He's nuts. He's also wrong, and his dissent doesn't eviscerate anything.

Because you say so? Without offering a single counter argument, or substance to back up your claim? Beyond...

Living in Indiana, those citizens with valid photo IDs are covered; those citizens without valid photo IDs are covered; those citizens who can vote through an absentee ballot are covered.

Clearly, you didn't read his dissent.

I've tried to be courteous to you, Steve. But if you're going to continue wasting my time by simply making things up, and pulling things out of your ass, you won't be long for this blog.

If you're unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution and its laws, and thus, are going to argue that voter registration groups should find voters who were denied their legal right to vote, simply because they don't have a state-issued ID, and arrange times to drive them to the county seat to have them sign an affidavit, even though they've already signed it on Election Day....well, suffice to say you've already made clear to all that you are not a serious person.

If you wish to offer a serious argument, or have a serious discussion, let me know. Until then, you seem little more than a partisan operative, with no weapons in your holsters, other than to offer disinformation.

If you continue to post unsubstantiated nonsense, with knowing disinformation, as I've warned you already, your time here will be short.

Last courteous chance for you, Steve. You're welcome.

#8 Thank you ! Spot on ! I am in a wheelchair 24/7 and also blind in one eye along with other problems . So even where I live it seems you have to have a picture ID just to take a poop ! It now costs me $30.00 for a DMV ID card. It has to be renewed every two years and each time it goes up another $10.00 . Now most folks would say so what that is nothing but when you have to pay the electric bill or buy food and you cant even get food at a food bank wothout a ID well it means doing without something that you have to have. So you are right this is a major wrong doing to the poor . It is a shame that to me it seems that voting is not even worth the time to find a ride or pay for a stamp for a absente ballot. This country has screwed all of us . I do not think it makes one differance if they are democraps or rethugs . They all are not working for the people.The real shame is that most people do not even care they only want to blame one side when it is all of them. Why vote with all the fraud ?
SAD REALLY SAD .

FYI, my email to Diane Rehm for her NPR show this morning, and my email to Nina Totenberg (regarding her Morning Edition report on Tuesday that featured Thor Hearne:

April 30, 2008

Diane,

In April 2005, five months after Congressman John Conyers, Jr. and the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff held hearings in Ohio which provided evidence of the deliberate "disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, predominantly minority and Democratic voters" in the state that finally gave Mr. Bush the Presidency. . .

Congressman Conyers reported on the new voter ID requirements proposed at the first meeting of the Baker Carter election commission:

"At the outset, Mr. Fund laid bare the nasty, racial underbelly of these proposals. The right-wing has been long engaged in tactics to suppress minority votes, but rarely lets slip about such tactics, as Fund did today. In a discussion about provisional ballots, Mr. Fund said that Congress should allow precinct workers to determine whether a provisional ballot should count because they would know who 'looks as if they belong in the neighborhood.' Wonder what he meant by that?. . .

"The pattern of the hearing was clear: Republican political operatives, with little or no track record of involvement in voting rights issues, facing non-partisan advocates for civil rights. Predictably, this hardly was a fair fight. The deck was stacked from the beginning."

And now, Diane, there you sit with this same John Fund.

When we need to hear from such people as Brad Friedman from Bradblog, NYU professor and author Mark Crispin Miller, and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Please dig further for guests and continue on this subject.

************

For Nina Totenberg, in response to yesterday’s Morning Edition story:

Thor Hearne should be understood in context.

Mr. Hearne is the former General Counsel for Bush/Cheney2004 who appeared out of nowwhere as the spokesman for the brand new American Center for Voting Rights just in time to testify for now-jailed Congressman Bob Ney in March 2005 about problems with the November 2004 election and then to turn around and be an invited panelist at the Baker Carter Election Commission. It has been his job, as an RNC operative, to promote fear of "voter fraud" to distract from the real issues found by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. in his late 2004 hearings in Ohio that found evidence of the "disenfranchisement of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of voters, predominantly minority and Democratic voters" in the state that finally gave Mr. Bush the Presidency.

See this coverage of Mr. Hearne by Brad Friedman at Bradblog.com. Please note the recent interweaving of Mr. Hearne with the mysteries of the U.S. Attorney Scandal: https://bradblog.com/?page_id=4418.

So, is any of this going to hurt or help Hillary or Obama in the primary?

I wonder if the Haas "sleep over with your DRE" big brothers of San Diego know that the GOP chair there is a famous software "Cracker" (now known as "Hacker")?

ALERT

can anyone get Brad to call in?

bob clark, morning DJ for 770KKOB in NM, the biggest station in the state, who is on just before Limbaugh, will be asking between 9 AM MST and 9:45- does NM need voter ID too? this is a monster station in these parts, makes it to WY at night.

1 505 243-3333
toll free: 1-800-460-0770
bob@770kkob.com

Brad Friedman said:

Clearly, you didn't read his dissent.

I've tried to be courteous to you, Steve. But if you're going to continue wasting my time by simply making things up, and pulling things out of your ass, you won't be long for this blog.

As I said, I did read Souter's dissent. It is obvious I got something different out of his opinion than you. For example, Souter states that it is a problem that there are 900 voting precincts in Marion County, but only 12 BMV offices. Here's my problem with his thinking; those BMV offices are open just about every week of the year, while the need for providing voting services at those precincts are needed during only select times (an election). Voting registration is open whenever the BMV offices are open, regardless of whether or not an election is coming up; one can pick and choose when to get registered. Yet, Souter attempts (II A) to use Burdick to apply a strict scrutiny standard that, in my opinion, doesn't exist here since voter registration can occur throughout any year and the BMVs are open and available throughout any year for that purpose (the majority opinion in Burdick itself, which ruled in favor of the state, and in which Souter joined, wasn't based on a strict scrutiny standard).

It could be argued that maybe the standard could be applied in regards to traveling to a courthouse within 10 days after filing a provisional ballot (II B in Souter's dissent). As noted by the majority opinion offered by Stevens, however, this case (Crawford) was a facial challenge, attempting to invalidate the entire law, and what was provided by the petitioners wasn't enough to do so, citing the recent Washington State Grange v. Washington Republican Party (which went against the respondents, with both Stevens and Souter joining in the majority opinion). Based on my reading of things here, Souter's dissent in this case is opposite to what he has ruled on even a month ago.

Hopefully, this helps.

I don't know a single American citizen who doesn't have SOME form of ID. We have to have it to work, open a bank account, drive, or receive gov. assistance. Obviously anyone who screams against ID is working for the groups attempting to subvert and destroy our country, constitution, and laws. Give it a break. You're either for Americans or against us. It's getting so much easier to find those hostile to law and order these days...

P.S. In our state even the homeless must have an ID to receive a bed or a meal at the local shelter, and they have a program to help them get one if they don't have one. If Democrats there have a problem with their voters not having ID, I suggest they get off their lazy asses and work for their bread and butter by helping them get one! Whiners.....

Nancy - your satire it spot on. You really know how to capture the tone of right-wing nutjobs who are completely out of touch with the Constitution and the workings of a true and open democracy.

Well done.

Funny thing about those affidavits the voter w/out ID has to sign at the county seat...the original legislation permitted them at the polling place on election day. A democrat opposed to the law, offered an amendment in committee that required them to be signed at the county seat to undermine the law. Sucks when your attempts to be cute come back to bite you in the arse, huh?

Indiana should just get to the point and require all people within its borders to carry ID at all times. Clearly this will eliminate all crime and fraud, how could any true American say otherwise?

I swear, if the Americans of the 1920s could hear you guys going on about IDs for law and order, they would be rioting in the streets. If they could catch a load of these mobs of fleshly androids hypnotized by fascists they'd be having to call their fellow citizens, the streets would be red with your blood. Freedom is not ease and it's not safety, and it's not law and order at the expense of the constitution either. Freedom is for people with the strength and courage to boot fascism or monarchy or dictatorship out on its butt, not troll around blogistan trying to sound like good little collaborators.

The Democrats have disenfranchised 2 entire states of voters, Florida and Michigan. Millions of people lost their constitutional right and you could care less. But make someone prove they are who they say they are and thats an outrage? LOL ok.

The authoritarian police state has a lot of fans, No?

Seig Heil m-fers

Yourkidding #25

Well, I guess you could look at it that way, but it was the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties who disenfranchised their own voters, not either of the states and not the Supreme Court of the United States. Those are two entirely different kettles of fish.

Barbara Bellows-Terranova and Trankhuseein -

Didn't see your notes until now, obviously, too late to call in, though I hope you guys did!

I can't be everywhere, of course, and you guys now know much of this stuff as well as I do. We need an army out there, and not a silent one at this point. So please speak up on such shows, etc. whenever you can! It makes a difference, since the truth-tellers have no platform here in the national media (unlike the bad guys!)

SteveIL (#18) -

Thank you for a substantive (if selective) reply for a change. It's much appreciated over what you've offered in your previous comments.

As even you admit, the burden of getting to the county seat 10 days later is an enormous failure in the law (whether or not petitioners made a good case). You also ignore Souter's point "that the State has not come across a single instance of in-person voter impersonation fraud in all of Indiana’s history."

So, I'm curious, if Indiana (or, in your case, Illinois) passed a law that said anyone named Steve had to go take steps above and beyond everyone else by going to the BMV before every Presidential election, and then had to make a trip to the county seat within 10 days after voting in order to have their vote counted (unlike anyone else), you'd be okay with that, right?

As of now, you've offered no reason why such a law, if passed by, say, the "Democrat Machine" in Chicago, would be objectionable to you in any way.

If you'd object to such a law, please let me know on what basis you would do so. Otherwise, I'll presume such a law would be just fine for ya.

Nancy (#19) said foolishly:

I don't know a single American citizen who doesn't have SOME form of ID.

Whether you know any such American citizens has nothing to do with it. But the larger point is that Indiana's law doesn't allow for "SOME form of ID", it requires, very specifically, a state-issued Photo ID.

Under the new law, even military ID won't do. So why do you hate the troops?

Beyond that, I thank Dr. Toxic (#21) for his/her brilliant reply to the rest of your garbage.

Yourkidding (#25) equally foolishly said:

The Democrats have disenfranchised 2 entire states of voters, Florida and Michigan. Millions of people lost their constitutional right and you could care less.

I am not aware of a "constitutional right" to vote in a private political party's nominating process, if that party chooses to keep it's own members from participating in the process.

But make someone prove they are who they say they are and thats an outrage? LOL ok.

Nope, that's not what the law does. But thanks for demonstrating that you haven't a clue about what you're writing about. You and Nancy would make a perfect clueless couple.

Well said, Agent 99.

To SteveIL: it's about freedom, the Constitution, and the right to vote.

Brad, it was selective because I ran out of time to go further. It happens. Now, let me discuss this rationally.

So, I'm curious, if Indiana (or, in your case, Illinois) passed a law that said anyone named Steve had to go take steps above and beyond everyone else by going to the BMV before every Presidential election, and then had to make a trip to the county seat withing 10 days after voting in order to have their vote counted (unlike anyone else), you'd be okay with that, right?

Somehow, I don't think this passes any sort of constitutional muster. Just as you provided an example that probably wouldn't happen, making a voting law for people named Steve. I could provide a similar example based on your quote here:

You also ignore Souter's point "that the State has not come across a single instance of in-person voter impersonation fraud in all of Indiana’s history."

"The State" could, in theory, not come across a single instance of robbery in its history. That doesn't invalidate a law that calls robbery illegal. OK, I know it's a stretch; but, is your example any more of a stretch? And in retrospect, there was a case of potential fraud with that woman who attempted to vote in Indiana even though she was registered to vote in Florida and didn't have an Indiana driver's license (she had a Florida one). Turns out, she was registered in both states, something that is clearly illegal. The only reason it isn't called fraud is because she wasn't prosecuted for fraud. And no, I don't agree with those who say she didn't break the law; I believe she did.

As even you admit, the burden of getting to the county seat 10 days later is an enormous failure in the law (whether or not petitioners made a good case).

I didn't say there was any kind of enormous failure at all. I said I could understand the scrutiny in regards to having to go to the courthouse within 10 days. But as Stevens points out, it doesn't invalidate the whole law, nor do I think it should. With the right to vote comes responsibility; a person attempting to vote with a provisional ballot has to follow the rules that were just affirmed by the court. In my opinion, I believe Souter is trying to say that before Indiana can pass this voter ID law, curbside service must be provided. No state legislature, nor the rest of the voting public, would let that one fly.

What I'm seeing based on the other cases I've cited, Souter's dissent here goes against those rulings he went with the majority on that did not impose the strict scrutiny standard he is using now. As I've mentioned, BMVs are opened year-round, registering to vote are available year-round, and those who do so have to take the time to do so, and figure out how to get this done. The state of Indiana gives people the ability to vote provisionally, and in order for the vote to count, people have to take a trip to the circuit court. And if they can't take a trip, they can vote absentee.

99 #24

No body noticed that a famous hacker runs the San Diego GOP either.

Gotta keep in "reel" I guess, it is a star thingy.

The reason you think its different is because you arent concerned over the peoples right to vote, when its democrats that are stoping them. In that instance NO ONE HERE cares about the millions who VOTED LEGALLY. The hypocracy is so thick in here Im running out of air.

Yourkidding #33
I hear this charge that the Democrats are stopping people from voting, yet there is never any fire under this smoke. (And don't come back at me about the MI and FL and the primaries: I went to my caucus and I personally think everyone should go to caucuses and not primary elections. You get to agree and disagree with real live people; the parties have to deal with real live people; and everyone in the family can attend --- at least they do in my neighborhood.)

Brad and most of the people who comment here do care about the "millions who VOTED LEGALLY." That's what this whole Brad Blog is about: making sure that every one who has a right to vote can vote, and that their vote is counted.

I know a lot of elderly people, and probably half of them voted a straight Republican ticket their whole lives. They are disenfranchised by these voting encumbrances.

When I was a child long long ago, one of the distinctions often made between the USSR and the USA was that citizens of the USA did not have to carry personal ID cards. Now we are just like those commies. If I put on my 1962 hat, the Republicans look like a bunch of commie pink-o sympathizers. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave! --- I've been wanting to say that for a long time. --

SteveIL #31 said:

...in regard to my question whether he'd mind a law requiring all people named Steve to take several extra steps (like going to the county seat within 10 days after voting, to sign an affidavit, attesting to the fact that his name was really Steve)...

Somehow, I don't think this passes any sort of constitutional muster.

Why not? If people who just aren't lucky enough to have an Indiana drivers license --- say, they are military and stationed in Indiana, but have a drivers license from Florida instead --- have to go through extra steps to have their vote counted, why should all Steve's?

It would be one thing if there were reason to believe that such folks like 80 year olds who don't drive, urban folks who don't have a car, or military members stationed in Indiana have a history of committing fraud, but by the state's own admission, there is no such history. Ever.

So why does it "pass constitutional muster" to make them take extra steps to cast a vote, in violation of the 14th Amendments equal protection clause, any more than banning all Steves from voting like anyone else would?

ANSWER: Nobody has *yet* picked on people named Steve and denied them their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to vote like everyone else. So you don't care.

"The State" could, in theory, not come across a single instance of robbery in its history. That doesn't invalidate a law that calls robbery illegal. OK, I know it's a stretch; but, is your example any more of a stretch?

Would making "robbery illegal" deny anybody of a Constitutional RIGHT? Btw, Constitutional Rights are not judged by how many are denied them. EVERY citizen is allowed every one of them, and if even one of them has such a right denied by a law, it is supposed to be Unconstitutional. Until the Supreme Court decided to change that 200+ year tradition last Monday, anyway.

But you're cool with that, apparently. Not sure why you hate the U.S. Constitution and American Values so much.

there was a case of potential fraud with that woman who attempted to vote in Indiana even though she was registered to vote in Florida and didn't have an Indiana driver's license (she had a Florida one). Turns out, she was registered in both states, something that is clearly illegal.

"Potential fraud"? Okay. Now presuming she had voted (which you say she didn't), how would the IN law have stopped that case of fraud from happening? When she went to the BMV to get her state-issued ID, she'd just have gone and voted with it. So what fraud, "potential" though it is, in your stretch to find any reason for this sort of law, would be stopped by this law?

In the meantime, of course, thousands will be unable to have their vote counted, as they are Constitutionally-allowed (until now).

With the right to vote comes responsibility; a person attempting to vote with a provisional ballot has to follow the rules that were just affirmed by the court.

That's right. Just as all people named Steve would have to take extra steps above and beyond all other citizens if the legislature arbitrarily decided to pass such a "rule".

After we take out all the Steve's, what say we require extra steps of the Jews too? They look to me like they are good "potentials" for "fraud" as well, eh?

After that, since we KNOW that Republicans have committed an extraordinary amount of Election Fraud, what say we make "rules" that require ONLY Republicans to take extra steps to try and have their vote counted. You're cool with that, I'm guessing.

As I've mentioned, BMVs are opened year-round, registering to vote are available year-round, and those who do so have to take the time to do so, and figure out how to get this done

Cool. And when ONLY Steves, Jews and Republicans are required to "take the time to do so", I expect you'll support that "rule" wholeheartedly.

The state of Indiana gives people the ability to vote provisionally, and in order for the vote to count, people have to take a trip to the circuit court.

Actually, a higher authority, the Constitution of the United States of America, gives people the RIGHT to vote equally, under the equal protection clause. No exceptions.

So again, why do you hate the Constitution, the troops, the Steves, the Jews and the Republicans, Steve?

Hey great site dude. Speaking of Indiana, take a look at how Clinton staffers feel about the great State of Indiana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-MzByUHIzw

totally pitiful.

SteveIL: If someone could provide proof of who they were, but didn't have a photo id, would you want to let them vote, yes or no? Simple question...

"these people somehow are able to get food to eat or they die"

Another great argument: eating & voting are the same thing!

The "relational" argument: "There's more people killed on our highways than our troops in Iraq...THEREFORE...the Iraq War is "ok"!

How about this: these people can't mow their lawns themselves, so therefore they can't vote!

Everyone knows if you can eat, you should be able to get photo id! That's plainly clear!

Hey all you know it alls, if you don't like what we do in our state then mind your own flippin business. Stay in your own state of denial and don't move to our state where a photo id is needed for eveything including video rentals. If you do move here then shut your pie hole and produce that photo id to set up housekeeping, unless you want to sneak in and live in that house with all those illegal aliens down the street. In that case, I've got documents to sell you so you can vote!