NAACP to prep voters

August 7, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund is sending attorneys to 10 states before the fall election to address voting barriers, according to the National Law Journal. Surprise, surprise, Indiana is one of those 10 states.

I’d wager the NAACP’s interest in our state has something to do with our recently upheld voter ID law and the confusion that still surrounds it. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld our voter ID law this spring, which requires voters produce photo identification before casting a ballot. Some people argued they were denied their right to vote in the May primary because even though they didn’t have the proper identification, they weren’t allowed to cast a provisional ballot.

The “Prepared to Vote” program will raise voter awareness of obstacles in the electoral process that may affect their right to vote. The non-partisan program wants to ensure everyone who is eligible to vote will be able to in the election. The group’s set up a Web site, http://www.preparedtovote.org, detailing more about the group’s work and state-specific information.

In Indiana, the group is working with the Indiana NAACP, Marion County Bar Association, and the James R. Kimbrough Bar Association in northern Indiana to educate Hoosier voters.

Turnout could be higher than normal with this presidential election. Even though Indiana’s voter ID law has been in place for three years, some people still don’t understand they need to have government-issued photo identification with them to vote. This group’s goal is a welcome step to making sure all Indiana residents who are eligible to vote know what they need to do in order to vote this fall. Who knows, Indiana may play an important role in determining who wins this year’s presidential election.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT