Back in September of 2006 I wrote a post saying that a bill calling for a photo ID to vote made sense. It is the second most commented post here at bRight & Early because a lefty blog linked to the post and the nutroots went, well, nuts. Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision isn’t going to make them any happier. (Not that that’s possible.)

States can require voters to produce photo identification, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, upholding a Republican-inspired law that Democrats say will keep some poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.

Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court’s 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana’s strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures. Oklahoma legislators said the decision should help them get a version approved.

The ruling means the ID requirement will be in effect for next week’s presidential primary in Indiana, where a significant number of new voters are expected to turn out for the Democratic contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

William Teach did some Blogster Diving (sort of like dumpster diving, except you don’t come out feeling nearly as clean)

Don Surber notes:

Indeed, the 2 plaintiffs who sued include a snowbird who was registered to vote in both Florida and Indiana. She was refused permission to vote in Indiana because she flashed her Florida driver’s license.

In short, the law works.

Both Democrat candidates shared their thoughts:

Barry O. ~ “I disagree with the decision, but we’re going to do everything we can in our campaign — I trust that not only the Democratic party but fair-minded Republicans are going to do whatever they can — so that people at the state level can exercise the franchise.”

Hillary ~ “I have questions about it. Now obviously the law’s the law, and has to be followed, but I hope it doesn’t in any way suppress or deter voter turnout.”

In some ways this parallels the arguments on immigration. The question isn’t about disenfranchisement (or immigration) but about legal exercise of the franchise (and legal immigration over illegal).

I don’t imagine we’ve heard the last of this, but it still makes sense. Guess the left just doesn’t like that.