In the 2008 election only 64% of eligible voted in the Presidential election. For people that work long hours, or with limited transportation options, additional days of voting give them more of an opportunity to cast a vote.<quoted text>
Question #1. What was the problem that expanded voting days?(not counting absentee or whatever).
Why is the effort being made to reduce the number of days? It is being done for a very partisan reason, to suppress the vote of those that tend to vote for Democrats.<quoted text>Question 2. IF 1 day was OK for so very very long, then expanded to goodness knows how many days depending on where one is (state, county, city or whatever) but now efforts are being made to reduce those days, what's the problem with a compromise number of days?
Of course, you would have to do NOTHING AT ALL to vote. Like me, you already have a photo ID, a driver's license. But not everyone does. The elderly, the young, and poor people are less likely to have a photo ID. That is the reason that Republicans are pressing for them, not any demonstrated voter fraud.(If they were primarily concerned with voter fraud, they would eliminate absentee voting, which is much more likely to be abused.)<quoted text>Lastly, I would be ashamed or embarrassed to think or admit that a photo ID was discriminatory.
That is tantamount to saying that I am too stupid, lazy or lacking support to get an ID every 4-6 yrs.
"Belatedly, federal Judge Richard Posner has arrived at the obvious conclusion about voter identification laws: They are enacted as a barrier to the franchise, an un-American tactic hatched by conservatives to prevent certain people from voting. It's too bad that his epiphany came so late.
Posner is one of the nation's most respected conservative jurists. As a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, he might have led the nation's highest court to reject new restrictions around voting. Instead, in 2007, Posner wrote the majority opinion that upheld Indiana's stringent law, setting the stage for the U.S. Supreme Court to reason that it did no harm to an unfettered franchise.
That was quite wrong, as Posner now acknowledges. While he disavowed his earlier endorsement of the law in a new book, "Reflections of Judging," he went further in a video interview earlier this month with The Huffington Post, saying that the dissenting view was the right one.
In that dissent, the late Judge Terence Evans wrote: "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.""