Good talking with ya.

Ultimately this debate is irrelevant however. The Twenty-Fourth Amendment of the Constitution explicitly enumerates that “The right of Citizens of the United States to vote…shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”(Emphasis my own). It says nothing about imposing some vague burden on voters, only that a voter cannot be denied the right to vote for failure to pay a tax. No poll tax is levied here and so no violation occurs. Only manipulating the text of the Amendment could mandate the result you seek.

If you think the law is unwise or unfair that is fine, the voters of Indiana can always elect representatives who will change the law. But, to borrow a line of dubious origin from Sen. Clinton, it would take “a willing suspension of disbelief” to accept that the Twenty-Fourth Amendment or any other provision within the Constitution invalidates the statute in question. Your arguments are political, not legal or Constitutional, and by painting them as such you confirm the points I made in my piece.

If you can’t get it via the mail, then you must go somewhere to get that ID. If you are elderly, you may not be able to go to the RMV and get that ID.
If you are working multiple jobs, you may not have time to go get that ID during RMV hours.
If you are poor you may not have a car and can’t spend the time or the money to go to the RMV and get the ID,
If you are a single parent that needs to get your kid to school, get yourself to work, then pick your kid up at school. You may not have time during regular RMV hours to go get the ID.

There are a few examples of problems even with free ID’s.

So unless the government is going to mail out ID’s to everyone free of charge, it is basically a bar you must reach in order to vote. aka a voting tax.

To argue that requiring voters to simply prove they are who they say they are is a poll tax invalidated by the 24th Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution is exactly the kind of Constitutional perversion I was writing about. If there was an actual fee mandated in order to acquire this ID card you, Sen. Obama, et al would have an argument. But there isn’t, and so you do not.

To me “activist judges” (I will use that because those on the right use it endlessly although I do applaud you for not using it) can go both ways. People shouldn’t call them “activist” just because they don’t agree with the decision.

So hey… I do agree with you on that.

That last bit is the most important part and EVERYONE should follow that. Unfortunately those judges that so many people call “activist liberal judges” are often following the law, the name-callers just don’t like the results.

It happens over and over and over again. They are only “bad activist judges” if they don’t follow the Conservative point of view. It doesn’t matter who actually appointed them.