In other words, Martha has taken away your right to vote on whether or not an ID should be required to vote. She’s decided for you. Answer—no. Uncle Omar gets to vote if he wants.
I talked to Olivier Kozlowski, the attorney who proposed and wrote the ballot initiative a few minutes ago, and I asked him what’s the problem?
“25 bucks. That’s the problem.”
Kozlowski told me that the US Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2008 to uphold a very similar photo-ID mandate in Indiana. But the Indiana law makes free photo ID’s available, while the Massachusetts proposal does not.
“In Massachusetts, the cheapest ID you can get from the Registry is $25. So that's what the AG's office is hanging their hat on,” Kozlowski told me. “If there's someone out there who doesn't need an ID for anything else in their entire life other than voting, then their 'freedom of elections' has been infringed upon, under the Massachusetts constitution.”
The fight isn’t necessarily over. Supporters of this ballot question can appeal Coakley’s decision to the SJC, but the window for gathering the required 70,000 signatures is closing.
“This is another advantage the politicians have given themselves,” Kozlowski points out. “We’re trying to get a question on the ballot in November 2012, and the first hurdle they throw at us is August 2011—14 month in advance. The system is front-loaded to discourage ballot questions in general.”
He’s right. It’s all about keeping power in the hands of Beacon Hill hacks like Coakley and away from We, the People.
"The truth is something [Warren] probably prefers not to confront. Harvard doesn’t come calling just because you’re a smart lawyer and a terrific teacher — not with Warren’s modest, Oklahoma upbringing and non-Ivy League education. She is not your typical Harvard professor. At a certain point, when the law school was under pressure to promote diversity, she represented a three-fer: a great lawyer with a national profile, a woman, and a minority, at least by virtue of family lore. "
-- Joan Vennochi
