Who Can Be Against Preventing Voter Fraud?
The first article mentions the usual suspects:
Those opposing the Indiana statute, including the ACLU, Acorn, the Brennan Center and other liberal activist groups argued that ID laws impose an undue burden and disenfranchise some voters...
The dissenting opinion, written by Justice David Souter and joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Justice Stephen Breyer dissented separately)...
No surprises there. The second article brings in Barak Obama ("...the most vociferous Congressional critic of such laws") and his special relationship with the aforementioned activist group Acorn:
Acorn's efforts to register voters have been scandal-prone. St. Louis, Mo., officials found that in 2006 over 1,000 addresses listed on its registrations didn't exist. "We met twice with Acorn before their drive, but our requests completely fell by the wayside," said Democrat Matt Potter, the city's deputy elections director. Later, federal authorities indicted eight of the group's local workers. One of the eight pleaded guilty last month.
In Seattle, local officials invalidated 1,762 Acorn registrations. Felony charges were filed against seven of its workers, some of whom have criminal records. Prosecutors say Acorn's oversight of its workers was virtually nonexistent. To avoid prosecution, Acorn agreed to pay $25,000 in restitution.
Acorn later invited Mr. Obama to help train its staff; Mr. Obama would also sit on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago, which frequently gave this group grants.
Preventing voter fraud is so common sense that even Justice Steven broke with his liberal jurors:
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, replied that such burdens are limited to a small percentage of the population and are offset by the benefit of reducing fraud. Furthermore, he noted, the law accommodates indigent voters or anyone who shows up on Election Day without proper ID by allowing provisional ballots to be cast. Those votes are counted if the voter can produce valid identification within 10 days of the election.
"For most voters who need [photo IDs], the inconvenience of making a trip to the [Bureau of Motor Vehicles], gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting," writes Justice Stevens.
Seems pretty common sense to me to protect the integrity of democratic elections. Now that we know "who's against preventing voter fraud", we need to understand more about "why they are against preventing voter fraud". Looking into Obama's connections to a group that commits voter fraud as a regular practice is a good start. Maybe somebody will ask him.