The New York Sun has a column by Patrick McIlherhan of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about Indiana’s Voter ID law. It contains arguments I view as specious. But, that’s not why I’m writing this. That battle is over, the good guys lost. No help for it now but to elect different legislators and change the law, preferably to impose a duty on the government to actively work to get ID into the hands of its citizens.
No, the reason I write is to congratulate Indiana Barrister’s Abdul for his recent apparent promotion. That’s Professor Hakim-Shabazz to you! (Though, I confess, I haven’t checked his identification or other credentials to verify his elevation to a professorship at the unspecified Indianapolis law school.)
“There’s always some incidental costs to voting — you can’t come to the polls naked,” an Indianapolis law professor, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz, who served on the task force that wrote the rules, says. The remarkable thing is that for all the talk of disenfranchisement, Indiana has had seven elections since, and those challenging the law have yet to turn up a plaintiff who credibly can say the law stymied him, Mr. Hakim-Shabazz says. (A dozen nuns, give or take, notwithstanding — Doug)
. . .
There is a decent trade-off to be made between access and security, and Indiana seems to have found it. “I never thought Indiana would be the model for the country of how to do anything,” Mr. Hakim-Shabazz says. It isn’t, not yet at least, but it ought to be.
More seriously, there was a task force for this? On which Abdul was a member? I missed that completely.
More on the nuns.
Their story is a bunch of BS. Follow the rules, ladies. Or get your knucles slapped with a ruler.
Ah, the Wall Street Journal opinion section.
There’s some high-caliber objectivity.
I always hate to poor gas on Brandens fire, but just exactly where in that WSJ article does he not state the facts?
Tim,
If it’s news, report it as news.
I was given to understand that the WSJ’s news operation was actually fairly objective (despite the hard Right slant of its ownership and its opinion section). Consequently, in the news department I reckon they have folks called fact-checkers.
If John Fund wants to get off his butt and do some reporting from the ground, great! Might be the first sweat he’s broken in years.
But as it is, he’s bloviating while hedging his “facts” with “according to the Associated Press”.
Well, shit, that’s all we do here.
It’s all BS! I know ’cause a blog said so!
Well, Buzzcut may be easily convinced, but I set the bar a little higher. I think the story aches for direct reportage. I wonder how much there will be.
I don’t see what the problem is. It’s an analysis of what was reported in the AP.
Was the AP mistaken?
No Buzz, the AP wasn’t mistaken, Branden simply requires certified documents, notarized statements, and photographic proof (ironic huh?) when the issue is one that fits his political stripe.