This Associated Press story purports to be an objective analysis of the pros and cons of Indiana's "toughest in the nation" voter ID law, now before the Supreme Court. But here's the way it starts:
There's the poor, 32-year-old mother of seven who says it would cost her at least $50 to vote in person. There's also the 92-year-old woman who's voted for decades in the same polling place, but now can't vote there because she let her driver's license expire when her eyesight began to fail.
And here's the way it ends:
"What matters is the burden it places on the right to vote," said Wendy Weiser of the Brennan Center. "It's a two-tier voting system that makes it easier for better-off citizens to vote. And it's a very circuitous route for poor and elderly citizens to get past the hurdles, and to have their vote counted. People don't want to swear an affidavit saying they're indigent."
Gee, do you think the AP might have chosen sides on this story? Its stuff appears in most newspapers in the country, which means its importance in setting the national agenda can't be discounted.
