Indiana passed a stringent voter identification law that makes it very difficult for anyone who doesn’t have a driver’s license to register to vote. People generally who are too poor to own a car, the elderly or who are disabled are all in the group that would suffer undue discrimination under this law. There is no evidence of any massive wave of “voter fraud” that would justify such a discriminatory measure. See this ( Caution: link opens a .pdf file) document written by The Brennan Center for Justice (as part of its amicus brief to the Supreme Court) which documents in 75 pages the incredible lack of evidence for the so-called “voter fraud” alleged by the State of Indiana to justify its Voter ID legislation. Indeed, The Brennan Center could find no substantiation for any of the alleged claims made by the State of Indiana and the Bush Justice Department which are asserted to justify the need for such a stringent voting requirement.
Nonetheless such laws would do a wonderful job at suppressing voter turnout among groups traditionally favorable to Democrats. Which is why Republicans love them, and why we’ll likely be seeing a lot more of these discriminatory laws if Justice Roberts and Friends have anything to say about it:
A lawyer representing Democrats seeking to overturn Indiana’s voter identification law faced tough questioning from Supreme Court justices this morning, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. leading the skepticism that a requirement to display photo identification is an unconstitutional burden on voters.
Washington lawyer Paul M. Smith said the law passed by Indiana’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2005 hinders the exercise of “our most fundamental right” and is especially difficult for people who do not have driver’s licenses–mainly low-income residents without cars, urban dwellers and elderly people who no longer drive. […]
The state of Indiana said the law, which requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID with an expiration date, was approved to prevent fraud by impersonators.
Smith noted that the state has never prosecuted such a fraud case, but Roberts said that is because “it is a type of fraud that’s hard to detect.”
Roberts seemed more interested in a lower court’s finding that those challenging the law had not found “a single person” who had tried to vote but was turned away because of the law.
Neither Roberts nor Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to find Indiana’s requirements particularly burdensome. Roberts pointed out that the state will issue photo IDs for those without driver’s licenses and that accommodations are made so that voters without identification can cast provisional ballots.
But other justices, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appeared concerned that the restrictions could make voting more difficult for some groups, especially the indigent. “If you really want people to vote, why” enact a law with such restrictions?, Ginsburg asked.
The case has an unmistakable partisan cast: States that have passed laws requiring photo IDs have Republican-led legislatures and Democrats usually are united against them. The case is arguably the most important to the two political parties since the high court’s 5-4 split in Bush v. Gore, which decided the 2000 election.
Looks like it will all come down to the swinger on the Roberts’ Court, Justice Kennedy. Sometimes he stands up for our constitutional rights, and sometimes he doesn’t. My guess here is that this time he will side with his good Republican buddies on the Court to uphold this law, and as a result we’ll see a rash of hastily approved “Voter Fraud Prevention Acts” which require a government issued photo ID in order to obtain permission to cast your vote in every state whose legislature is controlled by Republicans. Just in time for November, too.
this is a grey area of the law, where you have to find a desire to have fraud-free elections is unconstitutional for some reason. Ultimately, it is the intent of the laws that should be decisive, but no one will admit that the intent is to help Republicans get elected by disenfanchising people in the inner cities that rely on mass transport. It comes down to the judges. And we don’t have the judges.
BooMan its not all that gray, or at least it shouldn’t be. The usual standard of review under the Due process clause of the 14th amendment involving a “fundamental right” requires “strict scrutiny” by the appellate court of the law in question to see if it constitutes an undue burden on the exercise of that right. Usually the use of the “strict scrutiny” standard results in the invalidation of the law.
I think in this instance voter id laws would clearly impose an undue, and discriminatory burden, on the right to vote. So the question really comes down to whether, for Due Process purposes, the right to vote is a fundamental right justifying “strict scrutiny” (a three pronged test which the Indiana law would likely fail to meet) or not a fundamental right, allowing a lesser standard to be applied.
I’m guessing Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will all vote to apply that lesser standard of review, known as the “rational basis” standard. Under this standard of review, so long as the law bears any rational relation to the stated government purpose, the appellate court should not overturn it on due process grounds. It’s a slam dunk for the State in other words, since it is difficult not to find a rational relationship between any law and its stated purpose.
So it all comes down to Kennedy, and his view on the right to vote. Based on Bush v. Gore, I’m not very confident that he will do the right thing.
Let me add that the “strict scrutiny” approach requires a finding of 1) a compelling government interest, then 2) a finding that the law is narrowly tailored to meet that goal, and 3) that the law uses the least restrictive means to accomplish that compelling interest.
Here, the lack of evidence for voter fraud (as documented in the Brennan Center document) suggests that the interest of the state in requiring voter id is not that compelling, particularly when the restriction imposed would make it very difficult for poor people to exercise their right to vote.
It seems to me that this would require the IDs to be provided free of charge, since making them a requirement for voting would otherwise constitute a poll tax.
The id requirements need not be free to constitute a burden, particularly if there is no easy way to prove citizenship. In Indiana you need to get a birth certificate for any id which usually requires corresponding with the clerk of the county where you were born and paying a fee for a certified copy.
We have voter ID in Quebec for pretty much the same reasons the Rethugs want it. The Parti Quebecois believed non-citizen immigrants were voting and pushed it through. In the end it hasn’t affected the vote because we all have to carry the universal health insurance card, which has photo id. So if the United States could just go to single payer, the problem would solve itself. Another case for socialized medicine.
Here’s what’s required to get an official Indiana ID:
.pdf LINK
It ain’t easy. The link to the ACLU’s brief goes into great detail about the burden this places on one’s right to vote in indiana.
The compelling interest prong is satisfied right off the bat, “A state indisputably has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process.”
As for the narrowly tailored test, the court will say that a photo ID is the least restrictive mechanism to prevent voter fraud. This restriction doesn’t require you to know how to drive, yada, yada. You can use other documents, yada, yada. And you know, Voter fraud is evil, it dissuades people from voting, yada, yada, yada.
Courts dont buy the ‘systematic’ arguments, even if they’re right.
This will be a 5-4 decision, pro restriction decision, I am quite sure.
If Kennedy is writing the opinion that’s how it will go. My guess is that the other four opt for the rational basis test claiming voting isn’t a fundamental right.
but Oregon does not check citizenship status and it’s vote by mail. They don’t verify anything, just a check on the voter registration box.
I personally want to make sure everyone voting is a US citizen frankly.
I think this problem can be solved to reach out to those without driver’s licenses, the disabled, the old, the poor without compromising checking to make sure the voter is a citizen.
What can I say, I’m just quite tired of those who are not citizens trying to tell this country what to do, especially the foreign lobbyists using local front groups to advance their agenda, which is not in the United States national interest.
This is actually very well know that foreign lobbyists are using local front groups to influence/lobby US domestic policy and politics and I’m burnt out out this already.
Somewhere the line has to be drawn but I’ll concede the very real and great concern of voter disenfranchisement but isn’t there an alternative that checks for citizenship status? I seriously want only US citizens voting, what can I say.
Prove to me there is a wave of illegal aliens voting. Prove to me there is a problem. I can certainly prove to you the vast numbers of American voters who have benn prevented from voting by the Republican party;s voter suppression efforts over the last several decades. Voter fraud? Very little evidence that there is indeed a problem. Even the US Attorneys handpicked by the Bushies were unable to find cases to prosecute. So far the only documented case of voter fraud of which I am aware is Ann Coulter.
you do know that it is a crime to check a box declaring yourself a U.S. citizen if you are not a U.S. citizen, right?
We depend on this law for quite a few things.
and do you know ID theft and all sorts of things that are felonies are done daily?
No, sorry voting is more important than opening a bank account and even there you need ID.
any idiot willing to perjure himself to cast a vote deserves credit for his patriotism. No one does that.
We’ll just have to disagree on this one for there have been valid reports of non-citizens voting. It’s not a work of fiction.
Frankly, the idea of resident aliens, legal or otherwise, voting doesn’t bother me. If you live here, hold a job, stay out of trouble, and have income taxes taken out of your paycheck, why shouldn’t you be able to vote? Especially considering that an unemployed American ex-pat sitting in prison in a foreign country — and who therefore doesn’t meet any of those qualifications — is perfectly eligible to vote with an absentee ballot.
Frankly, I’m a little tired of immigration conspiracy theorists who want to send all of those jobs overseas where we can’t even tax them. Oh, I know that the fantasy theory is that if all the hispanics leave, there will be more shitwork for undereducated white people, but the reality is that the semi-skilled jobs will just go elsewhere and the unskilled jobs will go back to the same native-born minorities that filled them before the immigrants came. And everything will be much more expensive, adding to the misery of paranoid white nativists, who will then no doubt go back to blaming the blacks and Jews for everything.
Outsourcing ain’t just for unskilled anymore, not to mention the fact that a factory or trade job is skilled. Anything that can be done on a computer, or over the phone, can be outsourced.
Everything will not be more expensive. Trickle down or trickle up? Are you advocating the importation of slave labor in order to keep your lettuce a penny or two cheaper?
I’ve posted something on Daily Kos about this. It has links to various aspects of this issue:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/1/9/161128/3284
whoops…
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/9/17322/30603/336/433917
There’s not a speck of gray in this issue. It’s absolutely black and white, and okay, maybe a little bit brown.
This is an obvious no-brainer:
Republicans do not want people who are not likely to vote for Republicans to vote.
It’s that simple.
Sure, they’ll run hard, fight dirty, cheat, intimidate, etc. to win elections if they must. But if they can actually prevent their opponents’ supporters from casting a ballot, that’s more efficient, and, well, preferable.
It’s not a constitutional issue, it’s a political strategy, and the objective is voter suppression — conducted with the blessing of their pals on the Supreme Court if they can get it.
If you really believe in democracy, the U.S. Constitution, and values like ‘one man, one vote’ (which is really a way of saying every person has personal human dignity, and at least an iota of a say in his or her destiny), you are likely to favor laws that make it easier for people to vote, not harder.
What they believe in is winning and keeping power, by any means available to them, and without regard to any kind of moral or ethical guidelines, not to mention the basic principles that the country was founded on.
Voter ID laws are dressed up Jim Crow laws, pure and simple, and yet another example of the Republican approach to politics, which is to “win” and to hold an unfair, out of balance advantage in as many elected and appointed offices as possible across all three branches of government.