Voter ID: A case reaffirmed |

Voter ID: A case reaffirmed

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld yet another state’s voter ID law by refusing to hear an appeal, liberals should get the message that their false narrative about such laws suppressing the votes of impoverished, minority and young Americans — groups more inclined to vote Democrat — doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

The justices rejected an American Civil Liberties Union appeal of an appellate court ruling that struck down an injunction against Wisconsin’s voter ID law. Previously upheld by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the law won’t be used for Wisconsin’s April 7 election because absentee ballots are out already. But it will be in effect for future elections, Reuters reports.

Requiring voters to present a photo driver’s license, passport, military ID or state college or university ID, Wisconsin’s law is “almost identical” to the Indiana voter ID law upheld by the nation’s highest court in 2008, Hans von Spakovsky writes for The Daily Signal. And mind-bogglingly enough, he adds that the federal district court judge who issued the injunction that blocked the Wisconsin law — a Clinton appointee and former Democrat state senator — claimed that 2008 Indiana case was “not binding precedent.”

Thankfully, the administration of Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who backed the law, is now free to implement it — as the much-needed safeguard for electoral integrity it always was intended to be.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.