I thought the first sentence was misleading as a result of trying to grab attention: "With the 2008 elections on the horizon, the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on whether an Indiana law that requires voters to have a government-issued photo ID is a security necessity in the post-9/11 world or some sort of partisan plan to suppress voter turnout." Well, no, actually the Supreme Court should be guided at least in part as to whether the requirement is constitutional, and whether they think it falls within their jursidiction. These concerns were never addressed in the article. Also pairing the DNC's Voting Rights Institute against a poorly known black conservative group Project 21 as a source for quotes was odd, and they gave the spokesman from Project 21 a chance to speak at the beginning and end of the article, which they didn't do for Donna Brazile from the DNC VRI. But having said that, it wasn't an egregiously bad article.