The Supreme Court and voter ID

The New York Times today ran an editorial on the Voter ID issue, which holds that the Supreme Court should not serve the "electoral purposes of a political party" when it decides whether to uphold an Indiana Voter ID law.

The editorial makes clear that, in its view, upholding the law would aid the GOP, since members of communities that disproportionably vote Democratic would most likely be affected (immigrants, African-Americans, the less well-off).

Yet if the Court votes against Indiana, it will be supporting the "electoral purposes" of another  political party, the Democratic Party. The Times yet again illustrates it is willing to throw logic overboard for political purposes. 

Clarice Feldman adds:

Those fighting for the right of states to insist on voter identification received  a surprising piece of evidence in the very week the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court:

WASHINGTON - On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states. Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.