Cephus
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2007
- Messages
- 31,034
- Reaction score
- 11,932
- Location
- CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
See now, I can buy this arguement also. Too bad the ACLU didn't use it.
The Supreme Court already ruled, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court (2004) 542 U.S. 177, that states can make laws which make it a crime for a person to refuse to produce legal identification if asked to do so by a law enforcement officer. Of course, states don't have to, but they are entirely within their Constitutional rights to do so if they so choose. I would therefore presume that the federal government could, by the same rights, demand that anyone voting in a national election, be required to produce legal identification demonstrating they have the legal right to vote in said election. States could make that determination separately for state and local elections.
But of course, I don't see anyone actually complaining about their own rights being affected by this, only the ACLU acting on it's own. Why? Because the people who have no IDs and would be affected do not, probably almost universally, vote in the first place and wouldn't care.