DAS Blog

... So little brainpower to figure out how to say them.

As I go nuts trying to figure out how my fiancee and I are going to survive our wedding, I'll probably not have much mental energy to blog. And I keep thinking of things about which to blog, which then immediately slipped my mind due to that aforementioned lack of mental energy ...

One thing that does stick is the under-reported story about the challenge to Indiana's voter ID requirements. Interestingly, NPR actually has been reporting on the SCOTUS arguments, and I've only heard bits and pieces. What I've heard is the Democrats' doing a good job of pursuing their case on its merits.

But am I missing something? Is the coverage missing something? Why are the Dems. assuming the case has merits to begin with? Perhaps I didn't hear this or they aren't covering this, but shouldn't the Dem. lawyers, after giving their excellent arguments on the case's merits have followed up with "enough mit'n der Papa Loshen: now let's speak die Mama Loshen" and pointed out what the real issue is. Would actually saying

Look, the other side argues that the number of people who can't get IDs is de minimus. While I'd like to think that we Democrats stand up for everyone, especially the little guy, and want everyone to have the right to vote, without undue interference, we Democrats do have, as we must, priorities. Do you think we'd make a federal case out of this (so to speak) if it were just about the few voters who can't get IDs?

I'm sorry to say, that we Dems don't have the resources to do that. The larger issue is why are a bunch of so-called conservatives, who by definition of the word "conservative" are the last people who should want government action to fix a problem that ain't broke, have pushed through legislation to prevent voter fraud, which is just as de minimus as the issue of voters not being able to get IDs, if not more so?

We've just argued as to why the laws are unconsitutional, assuming these laws were conceived of, written in and will be enforced in good faith. But we can't make that assumption. It's probably not good of me to be making this point here, given how this body voted in Bush v. Gore, but ample evidence now exists, for example, that FL's laws preventing felons from voting were used to intimidate non-felons from voting as well.

How do we know that Indiana's law will not be "enforced" by denying even voters with proper ID the right to vote because some poll workers happen to decide the ID is "not good enough" and tell the voters that if they vote without good enough ID, they will be prosecuted for voter fraud? By the time the issue is uncovered, by the logic of Bush v. Gore, it will be too late to correct the results of the election, even if the election likely went the way it did because voters were threatened at the polls.

(and then continuing with a history of voter intimidation, etc.) be too ad hominem and thus not good legal form? Or is this another case of Dems. acting as if the other side acts in good faith even when it's painfully obvious that they don't? Or have the Dems. argued this and NPR, being "high minded" has chosen not to emphasize this in its coverage so that casual listeners might miss it?