Blah, blah, blah

I must have read 100 editorials and commentaries about the Indiana voter-ID law being considered by the Supreme Court. They are all depressingly similar -- the "fight fraud" side and the "voters are being disenfranchised" crowd just keep repeating the same mantras, over and over. Here's a typical passage from the "solving a nonexistent problem" camp, in The Boston Globe:

THE AMERICAN voting system has had all manner of problems lately, but an epidemic of voter fraud is not one of them. Even so, during oral arguments before the US Supreme Court last week, a majority of justices appeared poised to uphold a 2005 Indiana law imposing stringent requirements for photo IDs at the polls. Never mind that, in the course of combating a nonexistent problem, these laws impose a disproportionate burden on poor, minority, elderly, and disabled voters. And never mind that the laws have been pushed most aggressively by partisan Republicans who tend to benefit politically when such voters stay away from the polls.

That editorial at least comes right out and names those nasty "partisan Republicans." But, of course, Democrats are partisan, too. This issue has had the most predicatble party-line breakdown of voting of anything in recent memory, even including jurists who were appointed by Republicans or Democrats.

This is the perfect Red State-Blue State issue, because one's stance on it pretty much reveals one's predisposition, not just as a putative Democrat or Republicans but also as an adherent to the philosophy behind the party. One side truly believes the other side is a bunch of scoundrels out to steal elections with fraud. The other side really does think the poor and downtrodden are being screwed.