A DC judge has held up the rights of three states that requires voters to show proof of citizenship. There's more to the story.
Per Federalist Papers:
In a tongue-in-cheek ruling that mocked Obamacare, a federal judge said that requiring voters to show identification at the polls is perfectly constitutional.
D.C. Circuit Judge Richard J. Leon ruled that while it may be “inconvenient” to require proof of citizenship – and it may be a bit harder to get people to register to vote – it’s not “insurmountable” and it’s certainly harder than explaining ObamaCare,The Washington Times reports.
“The organizational plaintiffs and their members will undoubtedly have to expend some additional time and effort to help individuals,” Judge Leon wrote. “But let’s be candid: doing so pales in comparison to explaining to the average citizen how the [Affordable Care Act] or tax code works!”
The case is about three states specifically – Kansas, Alabama and Georgia – but the ruling could have wide impact as many states have been trying to clamp down on voter fraud.
The Obama Administration and the League of Women Voters have been trying to halt the practices of requiring identification at the polls, arguing that federal law doesn’t require a citizenship check when people register to vote and that these states were imposing an extra burden on voters.
But Judge Leon ruled the was no “real and irreparable harm,” so he rejected the Obama Administration’s claims.
This goes against the liberal stance that voter ID is a racist approach. This implies that minorities are unable to obtain IDs. Which if you think about it, isn't that pretty racist?