NYT ended free unlimited articles last year, though some was able to continue to obtain them for some time longer. But, at least in my case, that free period ended, except for twenty articles per browser (e.g., AOL or Firefox) a month. However, I was told (thanks WB) that using a RSS service (such as Google Reader) would allow you to get more than that. By that method, I read Linda Greenhouse's latest and a report cited included this striking tidbit:
Prior to the 2006 elections, no state required its voters to show government-issued photo ID at the polls (or elsewhere) in order to vote.Seven states signed photo id laws during the 2011 legislative session (elections like 2010 have consequences), only two having "strict" (to get a sense there, all but Rhode Island of the new set requires government issued identification; thus, a school or work id might not work) laws of that sort before. Again, NONE required voters to show government-issued photos before then to vote. Photography existed long before the middle portion of the first decade of this century. As the report notes:
To put this into context, 11% of American citizens do not possess a government-issued photo ID; that is over 21 million citizens.Also, to put things in context, the Bush Administration (including over the recommendation of its voting rights division as to Georgia) supported such laws, including in front of the Supreme Court (Stevens dubious opinion there, see the article, left something to be desired, if being limited in scope) while the Obama Administration rejected preclearance in South Carolina while Eric Holder made a special speech in support of voter rights. [Federal civil rights laws require preclearance for certain states with a history of discrimination while other limits on voting must be addressed after problems are shown in an actual election.] The report notes the partisan nature of such laws, the one law (Rhode Island) that had significant Democratic backing being more mild than the others.
There is some concern that the PPACA has this revolutionary threat to liberty and federalism, but this concern for novelty is as with federalism, somewhat selective. The report also notes:
Until recently, no state has ever required any voter to produce documentary proof of citizenship—or age or any other component of eligibility—to participate in elections.I talked about the Arizona law here being found to be partially pre-empted by a panel including Justice O'Connor [Scotusblog has an interesting discussion on her legacy here.] serving in her appellate judge role. As Mark Field over at Volokh Conspiracy noted in a thread on this question a month or so ago, the burden is on the supporters of these novel restrictions on the right to vote. Laws that make it harder, more expensive (to the voter and state) to vote and divide along racial and party lines in the process. But, it is particularly striking (about as such that Rick Santorum of all people is out there supporting felons getting voting rights back -- hey, you go boy) that these laws are so new.
A hundred years ago, we had grandfather clauses, literary and understanding tests and other means to burden the right to vote, particularly harming certain racial groups as well as some "poor white trash." This time around we have new novel laws, defended by people who make out as if nothing special is going on. If so, why did the laws suddenly pop up about five years ago?! Things that make you go "hmm."