The Supreme Court is set to rule on this case by June in Indiana just in time to purge the voting rolls and disenfranchise as many voters as possible before anyone has a chance to doing something about it. Well, Valerie Williams and Mary-Jo Criswell are prime examples of why it's completely bogus and must be defeated at all costs.

In April 2006, a federal judge upheld Indiana’s law on voter identification, the strictest in the nation, saying there was no evidence that it would prevent any voter from having his ballot counted. But on Election Day last November, Valerie Williams became that evidence, according to lawyers in a case that will be argued Wednesday before the Supreme Court. After Ms. Williams grabbed her cane that day and walked into the polling station in the lobby of her retirement home to vote, as she has done in at least the last two elections, she was barred from doing so. The election officials at the polling place, whom she had known for years, told her she could not cast a regular ballot. They said the forms of identification she had always used — a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver’s license — were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card. “Of course I threw a fit,” said Ms. Williams, 61, who was made to cast a provisional ballot instead, which, according to voting records, was never counted. Ms. Williams — who has difficulty walking — said she was not able to get a ride to the voting office to prove her identity within 10 days as required under the law, and her ballot was discarded...read on

But the decision will effect more than just the voter-identification issue. It will be pushed through as many states as the GOP can muster.

In the 1980s and ’90s, the Supreme Court came up with a test for assessing any law that placed hurdles before voters. The justices ruled that courts must weigh the value of the law to the state against the burden it placed on voters.

How the court applies that test in this case could set the standard for challenges to election rules across the country. The decision could affect a range of other voting-related rules being imposed by states, including ones involving the handling of provisional ballots, new restrictions on voter registration and the methods states can use to purge voters from registration rolls.

You can see the entire scam now. And what does the Bush administration say about it?

The Bush administration, arguing in favor of the law in a brief filed with the Supreme Court, suggested it was not necessary to prove fraud was actually taking place, given the importance of preventing such fraud.

BushCo. is implementing a preemptive doctrine on voter fraud where none exists and Republicans are determined to get this passed. This case has been decided right down party lines so I don't expect the Roberts Court to rule in favor of Democracy. We've had to fight for the right to vote since this nation was born and we must continue that struggle.