You don't need ID to receive social security or medicare. And in what universe does a Blockbuster require a photo ID?

But we've always treated voting differently. For one thing, the right can be taken away after a criminal conviction. You have to be 18 years old. You have to have registered and met minimum residency requirements in your locality. It's just an entirely different thing.

Not entirely, there have been plenty of cases where those under 18 are punished for exercising their free speech rights, and they certainly haven't been protected from discrimination or illegal searches. Children (those under 18) are generally considered subordinate to their parents, it's not just a voting rights thing.

The registration and residency requirements are not a prerequisite to your right to vote. As a US citizen, you have the right to elect your representatives in government. The registration and residency requirements are to make sure you're actually voting on an office that will be representing you, because otherwise you don't have the right to vote for that office.

Imagine if someone said you needed a driver's license to exercise your free speech, or that you needed a government-tracked photo ID to practice your religion.

But we've always treated voting differently. For one thing, the right can be taken away after a criminal conviction. You have to be 18 years old. You have to have registered and met minimum residency requirements in your locality. It's just an entirely different thing.

I've always had trouble getting too worked up about this. It just seems to me if someone cannot generate the energy or need to have some form of photo ID then they probably won't have the energy to go out and vote.

Ok then, try replacing your right to vote with any other right, and you will probably see what there is to get worked up about. Imagine if someone said you needed a driver's license to exercise your free speech, or that you needed a government-tracked photo ID to practice your religion. Even if you already met the requirement, you would be offended that it was required at all.

just wanted to point out briefly that the court notes that IN provides free IDs. See fn 6.

In that case, and baring any other unlawful requirements to get an ID, I don't see the problem.

Does the state of Indiana offer a free way to obtain a valid photo ID? If not, then they are by extension requiring you to pay in order to vote.

Agreed. If not, it sounds like a poll tax. IIRC, courts dispense with this by comparing the cost of a license to to the cost of gas to drive to the polls, but I find this utterly unconvincing. FWIW, I don't give a hoot about the policy arguments here; my sole motivating concern is that the Constitution forbids poll taxes. W/o free ID, it's a poll tax.

Welfare? Oh, snap! You've earned your right-wing street cred for the nonce, Joyner.

I'm merely allowing for the objection that some of these people don't have jobs and therefore don't need ID to get them. And, surely, some significant percentage of those who can't produce ID are in fact unemployed, no? At least, as you say, in the above ground economy.

The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters.

Indiana Requires ID to Vote -- Minorities, Poor Hit Hardest reads like a NY Times headline.

Mr. Denniston forget the dead, the four-legged, and the utterly non-existent Democrat voters in his list, which is why the issue came up in the first place. And before anybody responds that I'm being ridiculous, all of these categories of Democrat voters have been featured here in St. Louis County in the last few elections, two of which are documented in this NY Times article today.