It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When Edward and Mary Weidenbener went to vote in Indiana's primary in May, they didn't realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver's license or passport.
The husband and wife, both approaching 90 years old, had to use a temporary ballot that would be verified later, even though they knew the people working the polling site that day. Unaware that Indiana law obligated them to follow up with the county election board, the Weidenbeners ultimately had their votes rejected — news to them until informed recently by an Associated Press reporter.
It turns out ... that ... the reporter, Mike Baker, failed to reveal that the voters in question actually have photo IDs and have used them in previous elections.
Baker started off with what seemed like a frustrating story about two elderly Indiana voters ... who were unable to vote in Indiana’s May primary ...supposedly because “they didn’t realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver’s license or passport.”
This assertion was not true at all, it was later determined.
The AP never said a word about whether or not these elderly voters had photo IDs. ... It turns out that not only do the Weidenbeners both have valid Indiana driver’s licenses, but they also have passports, according to the Office of the Indiana Secretary of State.
Either of those IDs is acceptable under Indiana’s law. Contrary to the AP story, they told the Office of the Secretary of State that they were well aware of the voter ID requirement and had voted in prior elections in Indiana, since the voter ID became effective after showing their photo IDs at their polling place.
Although the Weidenbeners apparently forgot to bring their IDs to their polling place for the May primary, they live in a retirement community with an assisted living center, a communal dining and activity facility, and a number of detached houses for independent living. Their polling place is located within the assisted living center, adjacent to the dining room. It is so close to where they live that the Weidenbeners usually walk over to the dining room for meals. Thus, it would have been easy for them to have returned to their home to get their IDs, then gone back to their poll to vote an actual ballot.
Instead, however, the Wedienbeners cast a provisional ballot. Their home is only 2.24 miles from the county courthouse where they could have gone after the election to show their photo IDs so that their provisional ballots would have counted. And transportation would not have been a problem; they could get there via their own car, a city bus, or a community shuttle bus.
The AP also neglected to mention that since the Weidenbeners are over 65, they could vote by absentee ballot without an ID..
Nonetheless, recent unprecedented voter ID laws, sponsored principally by Republican conservatives in 10 states, require a government-issued photo ID before citizens can cast a vote that will count. Restrictive legislation is proposed or pending (some being litigated) in other states.
Sadly, these kinds of stringent voting restrictions reflect partisan shenanigans at their worst, making the voting process burdensome and discouraging for millions of eligible voters, effectively and purposely disenfranchising many. Most heavily impacted are students, minorities, low-income individuals, the young, seniors and the disabled because acquiring ID-supporting documents can be costly and access to ID-issuing offices challenging.
Originally posted by jimmyx
uhmm...i read the story, and there was no"flat-out lie" by the MSM....molehill equals mountain...briebart has lost all credibility with me anyway, so i start with the presumption that any briebart "news" story is false.
let me give an example of how rediculous this voter law was, for this "close-to-90yr-old" couple.. .