>> Friday, September 18, 2009
All qualified voters must be treated uniformly and impartially. We fail to see how the Voter I.D. Law's exception of those residing in state licensed care facilities, which happen to also be a polling place, would be a uniform or impartial regulation. Furthermore, the Voter I.D. Law treats in-person voters disparate from mail-in voters, conferring partial treatment upon mail-in voters.The disparate treatment of mail-in and ballot-box voters is particularly indefensible given 1) the obvious political self-dealing (absentee voters are predominantly Republican, voters without IDs primarily Democratic) and 2)the fact that the few cited examples of vote fraud involved absentee ballots, not in-person voting. When the rights of a discrete and insular minority are burdened in ways that benefit the partisan interests of the majority party by means of a law is farcically underinclusive given the stated justification...what you have there is an equal protection/privileges and immunities violation. Good for the Indiana courts for doing what the Supreme Court shamefully wouldn't.