In a recent speech, Hillary Clinton said (quote): "In 2013, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states." This past weekend, Attorney-General Holder stated that voting should be (quote): "unencumbered by…unneeded rules." "Restricting voting rights" and "unneeded rules" is lib-speak for opposition to photo-ID's. In the progressive world, where our Constitution has less relevance than Stonehenge, requiring people to prove their citizen-identity, in order to legally-cast a ballot, is apparently "unneeded" and "restricting voting rights." Translation: Who votes, and how many times, should no longer concern us in today's anything-goes America.
Having passed legal-muster, Georgia and South Carolina are among the nation's strict photo-ID states, where an approved ID must be presented to vote, or a provisional ballot filed, pending later ID. As with most polls, in 2011, Rasmussen reported that 75% of likely voters approve of the photo-ID requirement. Regarding the photo-ID's-prevent-minorities-and-others-from voting claim, Reuters found that in Georgia, for instance, the photo-ID law not only didn't inhibit minority-voter turnout, in subsequent elections, turnout increased! For those without a driver's license, or other government-issued photo-ID's, local authorities bend over backwards to make free, voter-ID cards available to those qualified. No matter the circumstance, if one can get to the polls, one can get to a free photo-ID location. Photo ID's are now required for much of everyday life, as they should be for voting. Elections have consequences. When it comes to the Constitutional mandate of one-citizen/one-vote, it's fair to question the motives of those who object to firmly-establishing citizen-voter identity.