And I don’t mean an LP featuring the ghost of Nipsey Russell reciting the coke-snorting, draft-dodging rich brat’s mental abilities.
The record says virtually nothing about the difficulties faced by either indigent voters or voters with religiousobjections to being photographed. While one elderly man stated that he did not have the money to pay for a birthcertificate, when asked if he did not have the money or did not wish to spend it, he replied, “both.” App. 211–212.From this limited evidence we do not know the magnitudeof the impact SEA 483 will have on indigent voters in Indiana. The record does contain the affidavit of one homeless woman who has a copy of her birth certificate, but was denied a photo identification card because she did not have an address. Id., at 67. But that single affidavit gives no indication of how common the problem is.
In sum, on the basis of the record that has been made in this litigation, we cannot conclude that the statute imposes “excessively burdensome requirements” on any class of voters.
Not familiar with this opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court?
Not even familiar with mandatory voter photo-ID laws?
Well, this litigation didn’t appear to be familiar with transsexuals.
But, I’d suggest that you get familiar with Crawford and any law in your state that Republicans have enacted to ensure that people who tend not to vote Republican aren’t able to vote.
Because, come November, those who will be enforcing such laws at polling places will be familiar with transsexuals.
And they will challenge your ID.
And they will indeed make voting “excessively burdensome” for you.
And your vote will never count.
As I stated over at Pam’s House Blend, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board will be
And it was decided whilst the Democrats (read: HRC’s HRC) fiddled.