The scenario:
Supporters say photo ID laws simply extend rules that require everyone to show such ID to travel, enter federal office buildings or pick up a government check. An honor system for voting, in their view, invites potential fraud. That's because many voting rolls are stuffed with the names of dead people and duplicate registrations--as recent scandals in Washington state and Missouri involving the activist group ACORN attest.
Opponents say photo ID laws block poor, minority and elderly voters who lack ID from voting, and all in the name of combating a largely mythical problem of voter fraud.
Fund then points out that we -- and the Supreme Court, in particular -- need to examine some facts:
The liberal Brennan Center at NYU Law School reports that a nationwide telephone survey it conducted found that 11% of the voting-age public lacks government-issued photo ID, including an implausible 25% of African-Americans.
But U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, who first upheld Indiana's photo ID law in 2006, cited a state study that found 99% of the voting-age population had the necessary photo ID. Judge Barker also noted that Indiana provided a photo ID for free to anyone who could prove their identity, and that critics of the law "have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting."
Since then, liberal groups have pointed to last November's mayoral election in Indianapolis as giving real-life examples of people prevented from voting. The 34 voters out of 165,000 who didn't have the proper ID were allowed to cast a provisional ballot, and could have had their votes counted by going to a clerk's office within 10 days to show ID or sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. Two chose to do so, but 32 did not.
Indeed, a new study by Jeffrey Milyo of the Truman Institute of Public Policy on Indiana's voter turnout in 2006 did not find evidence that counties with more poor, elderly or minority voters had "any reduction in voter turnout relative to other counties."
He goes on to cite some examples of races that were extremely close, and could very well have been changed if voter fraud had been eliminated or reduced. He also points out:
[A] 2006 NBC/Wall Street Journal nationwide poll found that, by a 80%-7% margin, those surveyed supported voters showing "a valid photo identification." The idea had overwhelming support among all races and income groups.
That sweeping support helps explain why, in 2005, 18 of 21 members of a bipartisan federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker came out in support of photo ID requirements more stringent than Indiana's. "Voters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their rights," the commission stated.
He concludes by saying that in 2006, the court unanimously overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling that had blocked an Arizona voter ID law. In doing so, the court noted that anyone without an ID is by federal law always allowed to cast a provisional ballot that can be verified later. The court also noted that fraud "drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised."
So, the Supreme Court itself has already weighed in (indirectly) on the fact that the Indiana law should be allowed to stand. A preliminary report seems to indicate they will uphold their earlier decision and the Indiana law, paving the way for more states to implement photo ID laws. Even Kennedy, one of the left-leaning Justices, seemed hesitant in the current hearings:
"You want us to invalidate the statute because of minimal inconvenience?" Justice Anthony Kennedy said near the end of an hour-long argument.
While some of the Justices definitely appear open to modifying the current law, it is still unclear which way they will ultimately go. Let's hope they stick to the facts and protect our right to vote...and by "our" right to vote, I don't mean dead people, animals, fictional characters, repeats, or felons!
There's my two cents.
2 comments:
Under these proposed rules, I would have been deprived of my right to vote. Some years ago, I moved into a new apartment in November. It takes six weeks (at least) for a new ID to arrive by mail, so even if I had gone down to the courthouse the very day I signed the lease, I would not have had a state-issued photo ID to present at the polls on November 4. I didn't even have a utility bill yet; who would four days after moving in? I had someone who was registered vouch for me at the polls, which would not be allowed under these new laws.
Of course, I could have travelled back to my old state and voted illegally under false pretenses with my state-issued photo ID. So how does this prevent fraud again? I would have been allowed to vote in a state I didn't even live in, but not allowed to vote where I did live because an ID couldn't arrive in time.
I'm not an expert, but I'd guess your recourse would be a provisional ballot. As I understand it, you'd have 10 days to go back in and prove (via proper documentation) you are who you say you are, and you live where you say you live. I'm not sure why you're saying it takes at least 6 weeks to get a new ID - I've gotten one every time I've changed locations the very day I went there... Anyway, another alternative would be to -- gasp -- plan ahead and send in an absentee ballot several weeks early, too. If your vote is that important to you, there are ways to get it done.
I find it hard to believe that people take their votes so seriously that they're willing to sue all the way to the Supreme Court, but they can't be bothered to get a ride to the local License Bureau. It just doesn't add up.
Thanks for your comment!
Post a Comment