Morning Read: 5/26/09

» NYT: Obama Makes Decision on Supreme Court Nominee ... looks like we'll all know what the big fuss is about soon. Announcement coming up around 9ish this morning. (UPDATE: It's Sonia Sotomayor)

» Chron: Moose finally deal knockout to Aeros ... no slipper for the Aeros this season. Bummer. The guys had an exciting playoff run while it lasted. And if Corey Locke is an Aeros next season, expect a good team then.

» NYT: In Defiance, North Korea Is Said to Test More Missiles ... this just in: North Korea is out of food.

» Chron: Dems seek concessions over voter ID ... Anchia picks up on the same-day voter reg tradeoff. Nice to see that, even if it is only for Early Voting. That said, I'd just as soon see the whole bill go down in defeat.

» Burkablog: How the Democrats passed Voter I.D. ... Paul Burka at his worst ... again. I realize I said he was at his worst two days ago, but he's somehow managed to outdo himself. How on earth anyone could confuse the Danburg '97 proposal with the Voter ID of today is beyond me. I mean, for starters, Danburg's proposal then involved the situation where the voter did not have their voter registration card AND their name wasn't on the voter roll. As opposed to the present proposal where someone can have BOTH and still not be allowed to vote because it might irk a Republican. Has someone seriously charted out Burka's sanity against the number of days the Lege has been in session?

UPDATE: Phil Martin does a masterful takedown of Burka's conflicting articles on Voter ID.

UPDATE 2: Evan Smith shows some signs of intelligent life over at the TxMo blogs:

Had Craddick not be ousted, had they still hovered somewhere just south of 90 members, etc., etc. But the fact is, he was, and they don't. So it's up to the House Rs, not the House Ds, to get the train back on track. They're the ones who have to get the Ds to compromise, because unless they do, the Ds can use, in the Speaker's parlance, the process that's available to them. Mr. Schminciple may not like it -- and he's right that tactics are not an endgame -- but to quote David Mamet in what we may as well call Glengarry Glenn Smith, "That's the way the game is played, Bubby."

As for the explaining to be done, I would say it falls to those people who are so hell-bent on passing voter ID ahead of windstorm, insurance sunset, and other bills that pass the test of pressing need. Does voter ID pass that test? Honestly? I understand the reason for it, and I can even accept that every check on possible fraud is worth having in place, provided it doesn't disenfranchise upstanding voters. But can anyone who supports it, in the Senate or the House, look me in the eye and tell me it's more pressing than, or even as pressing as, the other issues presently languishing?