The Supreme Court is now hearing a case to decide whether it is constitutional for states to require voters to show a photo ID at a polling place. One of the people used as an example of how people are disadvantaged by such a requirement turns out to have been engaged in voter fraud herself, being registered to vote in both Indiana and Florida.
She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she’s never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.
Subsequently, Ewing became a sort-of poster child for the opposition when the Indiana League of Women Voters (ILWV) told media that the problems Ewing had voting that day shows why the high court should strike it down.
But Indiana Republican Secretary of State Todd Rokita said Monday that Ewing’s tale illustrates exactly why Indiana needs the law. “This shows that the Indiana ID law worked here, which also calls into question why the critics are so vehemently against this law, especially with persons like this, who may not have a legal right to vote in this election,” Rokita said.
This woman also claims homestead exemptions in both states.
I’ve found it difficult to understand why something needed to rent a movie, cash a check, play miniature golf, etc., is burdensome. I’ve been part of voter registration drives; can’t one have ID drives that would provide photo IDs for the few people who don’t now have them?
It’s important to remember that one person’s vote in effect cancels another’s. Someone who votes illegally cancels the vote of someone else. My right to vote can be infringed not only by refusing to let me vote but also by allowing someone else to vote who isn’t legally entitled to.