ROME, Georgia (AP) -- The same federal judge who threw out Georgia's voter ID law last year blocked the state Wednesday from enforcing its revised law during this year's elections.
The ruling came less than two hours after the Georgia Supreme Court denied the state's emergency request to overrule a state court order that blocked enforcement of the new photo ID law during next week's primary elections and any runoffs.
U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy's ruling, which he delivered verbally from the bench, was much broader, also including the November 7 general elections and any runoffs.
If the rulings stand, Georgia voters will not have to show a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot this year. The state's primary election -- which would have been the first election for which the IDs were required -- is scheduled for Tuesday.
Murphy said the state's latest attempt at requiring voter photo IDs discriminated against people who don't have driver's licenses, passports or other government-issued IDs.
"That is the failure of this legislation as it stands," he said.
What is especially aggravating is that bit about the voter ID law discriminating against people who don't have driver's licenses. It makes no sense. Under the voter ID law in Georgia anyone who can't afford a $10 state-issued photo ID will be issued one for free.
So how is this discriminatory? Because it makes a small minority people have to actually obtain an ID before voting? So what? Many states (I'm not sure about Georgia, we don't do it up here in North Dakota) require that people register before they vote. How is that any different from obtaining an ID, really?
Plus, the actual act of voting requires that you physically get off your duff and travel down to a polling station. Isn't this discriminatory - using this judge's logic - against people who don't have cars? Or live a long way from polling stations?
This ruling just doesn't make sense. Clearly, given the amount of vote fraud and accusations of vote fraud we've observed over the last few elections, there is a need for legislation like this...yet according to this judge in Georgia (and many on the left) any requirement that people be able to provide documentation that proves they are who they say they are is discriminatory.
It's like a catch-22. I'm almost of a mind to say that many liberals are opposing these anti-vote fraud efforts specifically so that they have something to blame besides their own politics when they lose elections.