The US Supreme Court has hammered another nail in the coffin of the voting rights protections my father and many, many others risked their lives to establish for all Americans. (Why do I say "another" nail? See the related links at the end of this post.)
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law on Monday, concluding in a splintered decision that the challengers failed to prove that the law’s photo ID requirement placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.
The 6-to-3 ruling kept the door open to future lawsuits that provided more evidence. But this theoretical possibility was small comfort to the dissenters or to critics of voter ID laws, who predicted that a more likely outcome than successful lawsuits would be the spread of measures that would keep some legitimate would-be voters from the polls.
(link)
In light of the Supreme Court decision and the likelihood that it will encourage more states to pass voter ID laws, it seems appropriate to re-run some information that I compiled two years ago.
[Originally posted January 30, 2005]
(emphasis added)
New York
excerpt from:
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/voting/20020401/17/728
First, there is the straightforward practical concern. As many as 3 million New York City voters do not have a driver's license. Indeed, 1990 census data showed that less than 50 percent of New York City's voting age residents had a driver's license compared with 91 percent of the state's residents overall. Also, members of minority groups are far less likely to have a driver's license than whites; recently naturalized citizens (and new immigrants from Puerto Rico) are also less likely to have a driver's license. For many of those potential voters, it may also prove onerous for them to have another valid form of identification handy when they go to the polls. This requirement, then, could depress the voting power of New York City and members of minority groups.
Second, application of the identification requirement is likely to create a host of problems. An identification requirement will require poll workers to use their discretion and judgment. More discretion and judgment will be required when the voters use a form of identification other than a driver's license. Unfortunately, poll workers often get the rules wrong. The more complicated the rules, the more likely they will not be applied properly - and this set of rules could seem complicated. A study of New York City's 2001 general election by the New York Public Interest Research Group demonstrated that most poll workers did not know basic rules about where someone should vote if they moved or who could help a disabled person vote. This suggests that poll workers will not be able to apply an identification requirement properly. Under the bill, the first-time voters who fail to provide proper identification should be permitted to vote with an affidavit or paper ballot, with which they sign an affidavit promising that they are who they say they are. But, again, given the reliability of the poll workers, it is quite likely that significant numbers of voters could be wrongly turned away. In fact, New York election lore is full of stories about poll workers who do not know when someone should use such a ballot and denying voters access to such ballots.
The i.d. requirement also creates opportunities for discriminatory treatment. African-Americans have a history of being subjected to special scrutiny at the polling place - as have members of other minority groups and recently naturalized citizens. Stories abounded in Duval County, Florida of African-American voters being asked to show a form of identification - sometimes two - while white voters were allowed to sign in without presenting any i.d. Similarly, a survey conducted by the Asian American Legal Defense Fund found that in the 2001 New York City general election one in six Asian voters was improperly asked to show identification before voting.
Finally, there is no evidence that such a rule is needed. In even the closest elections, there is rarely any evidence of voter fraud at the polls. And, the experience of states with same-day voter registration suggests that identification is not needed to protect against fraud.
Wisconsin
excerpt from:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/mar03/129305.asp
Guess how many verified cases of identification fraud lawmakers cited in advocating a new rule that residents show a Wisconsin driver's license or a state ID card each time they vote? Answer: Zero.
That's right. Backers of the measure noted not a single instance anywhere in Wisconsin in which it was shown that a voter lied about who he or she was in casting a ballot. So the ID rule, approved this month by the Assembly, fixes a problem that lawmakers have failed to show exists.
Well, the rule won't do any harm, right? Wrong: It will do harm. This added step is sure to stop some eligible voters from exercising their franchise. That price is worth paying only if identification fraud amounts to a serious problem in state elections.
Ease of voting has put the state among the leaders in voter turnout - a tradition lawmakers should safeguard. Wisconsin requires proof of residency at the time one registers, not a state ID each time one votes. Right now, only eight states require all residents to show identification on each trip to the polls, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, and only one of those states, South Carolina, mandates the use of driver's licenses or state ID cards. That's company Wisconsin shouldn't keep.
True, for an overwhelming number of residents, the ID requirement would amount to a small or no inconvenience. But for a minority, it could act as a stumbling block to the polls, which should be easily accessible to all eligible voters.
The rule could keep from the polls: newcomers with out-of-state driver's licenses; poor people too consumed with day-to-day existence to take the time to get the proper ID; elderly or disabled people lacking the mobility to conveniently get the required cards; and residents who have misplaced their ID cards or have simply forgotten to bring them to the voting sites.
New Mexico
excerpt from:
http://abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/223359opinion09-15-04.htm
Like most states, New Mexico has never required voter ID. New Mexico's checks on voter fraud include a computerized system that verifies that voters are real, live where they say, and are eligible to vote. Voting twice is a crime, and voters' signatures are in county clerks' records for comparison.
Voter ID requirements have been shown to interfere with balloting by students and by voters who don't: drive; have a utility bill in their name; bring "proper ID" to the polls; or understand the complicated procedure for providing ID to vote absentee.
An ID requirement, particularly one imposed at the last minute, would effectively turn many lawful voters away.
Two weeks ago, despite these facts, Republican Party lawyers concocted a "voter ID" controversy by loudly proclaiming their "shocking discovery" that voter registration groups had filed "at least 3,000 fraudulent registrations in Bernalillo County alone." This provoked the public freakout the Republicans wanted. Their charge, however, turned out to be fabricated. When their lead plaintiff was under oath, he had to admit they had no evidence of fraud. The "3,000 fraudulent registrations" were duplicates, forms with illegible addresses, omitted Social Security numbers, unsigned forms and the like. In other words, just what you would expect among 60,000 new registrations. None were added to the voter rolls, nor could they have resulted in a fraudulent vote. The only arguably "fraudulent" registration apparently was a teenager's prank that would have been routinely screened out during computerized cross-checking of Social Security numbers.
In court, the director of the Bureau of Elections and a county clerk's representative carefully explained how New Mexico's databases eliminate felons, dead people, people who have moved away, and other ineligible voters.
National studies confirm the United States does not have the "voting fraud" problem the Republicans are braying about. What we do have is a pattern of exclusion of lawful voters. This is the ugly picture that emerged in Florida where thousands of black voters were wrongfully denied the vote. It does not take a vivid imagination to know what a requirement for "proper ID" would translate into in Florida or, for that matter, what kind of chaos would reign at New Mexico polls if a last-minute "voter ID" requirement were imposed on thousands of new voters when there is no agreement on what constitutes a valid ID. --snip--
So why are the Republicans beating the drum for voter ID for new registrants? The answer is simple. There are more than 120,000 new registrants in New Mexico— 44 percent Democrats, 24 percent Republicans and the rest "Independent" or "Won't Say."
Add to that the fact that ID requirements historically disrupt voting by students, minorities (particularly Native Americans in remote areas), the institutionalized elderly and the poor. These groups (surprise!) tend to vote Democratic. If you think the Republicans would be demanding voter ID if new-voter numbers were reversed, I have a bridge to sell you.
The percentages being what they are, a voter ID requirement would likely shave a couple of points off the Democrats' margin in this swing state. Republicans are about as concerned with "voter fraud" as they are with protecting the spotted owl. They want the chaos and vote suppression they managed in Florida.
BLOG POSTS
COMMENTS
PODCASTS
