Did You Know...

The Supreme Court gives us more good news this morning: Indiana’s voter ID law has been upheld.

Half of the states have passed similar laws.

The race-mongers and open borders lobby will be in an uproar. CQ summarizes:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to show photo identification at the polls, in a closely watched case with important ramifications for the 2008 elections.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices upheld an earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit.

Proponents of the Indiana law at issue in the case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, said the state’s interest in preventing voter impersonation fraud outweighs whatever burden might be placed on a small number of people. Opponents argued that the Indiana law unfairly burdens poor and elderly voters, who tend to favor Democrats but are least likely to have driver’s licenses or passports.

The Justice Department sided with Indiana in the case, agreeing that the voter ID requirement is constitutional.

You may recall that the woman who challenged the voter ID law in Indiana was, um, fraudulently registered to vote in two states.

D’oh.

La Shawn Barber excoriates liberal black leaders who lobbied against voter ID laws.

SCOTUSblog has full coverage.

Allahpundit takes a closer look at the ruling’s rejoinder to the Left’s argument that ID requirements impose an undue burden. One of the lib justices betrays his own.

***

Update: Barack Obama plies the Left’s bogus undue burden argument:

Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, calling it “wrong,” and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.

“I am disappointed by today’s Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana’s photo identification law — one of the most restrictive in the nation,” Obama said in a written statement.

He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana’s voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that “it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups.”