Kevin Fischer is a veteran broadcaster, the recipient of over 150 major journalism awards from the Milwaukee Press Club, the Wisconsin Associated Press, the Northwest Broadcast News Association, the Wisconsin Bar Association, and others. He has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for over three decades. A longtime aide to state Senate Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, Kevin can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, "InterCHANGE," on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10, and heard filling in on Newstalk 1130 WISN. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, and their lovely baby daughter, Kyla Audrey, in Franklin.
Don’t they have better things to do?
In order to get a valid photo ID in Indiana to then show to cast your vote, you must have a validated birth certificate and two other forms of identification.
Uhhhh, that’s a problem………………….how?
According to ABC News, “An Indiana state employee has testified that as many as 60 percent of applicants for IDs are turned away because of improper documentation.”
Uhhh, that’s a bad thing………………….how?
No proper ID, guess what? You don’t get your Rambo video. You don’t get your ears pierced. You don’t vote!
This might be the biggest no-brainer in the history of the United States. If you are Joe Smith, prove it before you cast your ballot. Only brain dead liberals who actually are in favor of voter fraud do not understand this common sense concept.
I concur with the following editorial from the Indianapolis Star, a newspaper in the state whose law is the subject of Supreme Court scrutiny today:
State's voter ID law should pass Supreme test
January 7, 2008
Our position: Supreme Court should uphold Indiana's voter ID law.
Casting a ballot is a fundamental right of American democracy. But it's not a right without restrictions.
Citizens must meet age and residency requirements to vote. They must in most states, including Indiana, register well in advance of Election Day. They must complete ballots in a prescribed fashion for their votes to be counted. Unless using an absentee ballot, they must show up at an assigned location within a set number of hours. Each of those requirements creates an obstacle to voting. Yet, they're generally accepted and not considered legally suspect.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday is scheduled to hear arguments on whether one other requirement for voting is constitutional -- Indiana's law requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls.
As with other common restrictions on voting, the photo ID requirement is fair and reasonable. The court should easily uphold Indiana's law.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, in a 2006 ruling, demolished arguments put forward by the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. "Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting,'' Barker wrote at the time.
Think about that: The plaintiffs failed to find a single voter who couldn't cast a ballot because of the ID requirement. If no was injured, is there really a case?
Barker noted that the lack of evidence that the requirement has harmed the public is "testament to the law's minimal burden and narrow crafting.''
The plaintiffs on Wednesday will ask the justices to swallow the incredulous notion that in 2008 it's too demanding to ask a voter to produce a photo ID when casting a ballot in person. That argument flies in the face of modern-day reality. People are routinely required to show an ID to cash a check, use a credit card, pick up prescription drugs, fly on an airplane or complete any number of other transactions.
But isn't the ID requirement a burden for the poor? State law enables anyone to receive a free photo ID from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.
Registered voters who object to showing an ID at the polls always have the option of casting an absentee ballot.
The General Assembly passed the ID law out of concern about voter fraud. Critics argue that prosecutors rarely if ever bring charges against voters accused of Election Day fraud. That's not the same, however, as showing that a reasonable precaution against fraud is unconstitutional.
The high court should see through the arguments against the voter ID law and allow this common-sense requirement to remain.