In this election cycle, voter ID has become a big issue. While it is obvious that it should be checked whether or not someone is a legal citizen before they are allowed to vote, Democrats are offended by the idea of this.
From The Federalist Papers:
Good news for Americans who aren’t fans of fraud.
In a tongue-in-cheek ruling that mocked Obamacare, a federal judge said that requiring voters to show identification at the polls is perfectly constitutional.
D.C. Circuit Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that while it may be “inconvenient” to require proof of citizenship – and it may be a bit harder to get people to register to vote – it’s not “insurmountable” and it’s certainly harder than explaining ObamaCare, The Washington Timesreports.
“The organizational plaintiffs and their members will undoubtedly have to expend some additional time and effort to help individuals,” Judge Leon wrote. “But let’s be candid: doing so pales in comparison to explaining to the average citizen how the [Affordable Care Act] or tax code works!”
The case is about three states specifically – Kansas, Alabama and Georgia – but the ruling could have wide impact as many states have been trying to clamp down on voter fraud.
The Obama Administration and the League of Women Voters have been trying to halt the practices of requiring identification at the polls, arguing that federal law doesn’t require a citizenship check when people register to vote and that these states were imposing an extra burden on voters.
But Judge Leon ruled the was no “real and irreparable harm,” so he rejected the Obama Administration’s claims.
This is the latest ruling in what has bene a struggle for many years now. In the state of Kansas for example, there was evidence of 25 people trying to vote who turned out to be non-citizens.
“This is a very real problem and the only way to solve the problem is to require proof of citizenship on the front end,” said Kris W. Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state.
What are your thoughts on this?