To begin this post, I'll say that I'm an adopted Hoosier (47 years ago), so I've been watching this law and the litigation.

I don't approve this law, because its effect is likely (despite the free ID and delayed identity proof) to suppress the voting rates of the aged and the poor, who statistically are more likely to vote Democratic. The push for drivers license ID to vote was predominantly by the Republicans, and looks to me like blatant dirty politics.

The argument given in favor of the restriction was specious. It was "to prevent voter fraud", despite the fact that there has NEVER BEEN a single verified case in Indiana of individuals voting by pretending to be someone else, or any other type of fraud which would be arguably prevented by requiring the driver ID.

On the other hand, I came to Indiana at age 30 from Minnesota, where I grew up, and despite feeling a sort of proprietary interest in things Minnesotan, I read Fantasma's report of Minnesota's approach with a feeling of disquiet. That's WAY too loose and sloppy, methinks.

Oh, well, despite all the abundant evidence to the contrary, dirty politics was not invented in Indiana.

Dave Oesterreich