An increasing number of voters in the US are now required to show a photo ID to vote. Eight states have “strict” ID laws, and several more are considering similar rules: no proof, no vote. Critics argue that minorities, immigrants, and the poor are less likely to have photo IDs and are effectively being disenfranchised. Indiana was among the first states to pass a voter ID law back in 2005. If you ask Indianapolis attorney Tom Wheeler, who works with the Republican Party and Republican candidates, whether the law was necessary, he brings up the 2003 Democratic mayoral primary in East Chicago, Indiana. “The fraud was so bad, that the (Indiana) Supreme Court couldn’t even figure out who won the race,” said Wheeler. But ask Bill Groth, a lawyer who often represents Democratic Party interests, and he’ll give you a different slant. “The state of Indiana later stipulated that there was not a single recorded prosecution for imposter voting fraud in the history of the state,” said Groth. So which man is lying? Neither.
The Indiana Recount Commission ruled 3-0 Tuesday that Secretary of State Charlie White will keep his statewide office despite confusion over his voting address last year.
The partisan panel – two Republicans and one Democrat – specifically found that White was legally registered to vote when he ran for office and won last year – something the Indiana Democratic Party contested.
Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler said White was an eligible candidate and was properly registered at his ex-wife’s home because he intended to live there with his son until his marriage in late May 2010. The finding puts an end to the civil complaint unless the Democrats decide to appeal.
The Indiana Recount Commission will rule today on Democrats’ challenge to Charlie White’s eligibility to serve as secretary of state.
The Democrats say White was illegally registered to vote at the time he declared his candidacy and should be replaced by Democrat Vop Osili, whom White defeated in November.
The commission’s decision will determine White’s immediate political future, but it might not end the months-long debate over his eligibility to hold office because either side could appeal to the courts.