Voter ID Requirement Upheld
In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most eagerly awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law, probably the strictest in the country, imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification (iht).
According to the Court, the state has a “valid interest” in requiring voting citizens to produce a photograph identification card in order to improve election procedures and deter voter fraud. The main challenge to the law was that it inherently discriminated against the old, poor, or minorities, because they are less likely to have an acceptable photo ID. There were also partisan complaints made by those against the law claiming that the requirement of photo ID discriminates against the Democratic constituency — the old, poor, and minority demographics.
Justice Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, found that the Democrats and civil rights groups who opposed the law, seeking the Court to declare it unconstitutional on its face, failed to meet meet the burden required for a “facial challenge” to win in open court. Furthermore, responding to the partisan claim, Stevens said that the justifications for the law “should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators.” Simply put, the plaintiff in this case was unable to show that his or her rights had been violated.
Although I would like every advantage possible for the Democrats come this November, I find the ruling by the Court just and reasonable. The requirement of a photo ID is not a undue burden, by any account. Identification on demand is not a new concept or restricted to just voting. Photo IDs are required for anyone who wants to buy tobacco, alcohol, or get into a Casino. I haven’t heard the people complaining en masse about their inability to buy some booze or gamble their money away; why, then, is it claimed to be an undue burden upon a citizen to produce a photo ID at the voting booth?
Voter fraud and election stumbles do nothing but frustrate the process; reasonable measures taken to keep the process as kink-free as possible should always be welcome, granted they are justifiable. Efficient voting procedures and the deterrence to voter fraud is indeed justifiable and passes the undue burden test. As Scalia, and two other justices said, “the law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.” Photo IDs are cheap and easily obtained (granted your are an American citizen) and should be required of all voting citizens at the booth.
Why yes, I do agree. Though this will mean more work for political organizers (as if we needed that), photo IDs seem to be the least we can do.
I’m wondering if this affects the Indiana primary at all. I don’t know if the law applies, but it could turn into a contest between old people and black people to see who can remember their wallets.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 2:57 pm
From what I can tell it will apply, since it was already passed by the Indiana Legislature. Right?
S.C. Denney
28 Apr 08 at 3:13 pm
Reading about legal things makes me want to curl into a ball and die. I’m only concerned about how to circumvent election laws, so I’m relying on you for that information.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 3:19 pm
… waiting for krjohns …
S.C. Denney
28 Apr 08 at 3:22 pm
I wonder if this will take the legs out from the “record turnout” that we are all expecting. I mean, how are we supposed to break those kind of records if dead people and illegal immigrants can’t vote?
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 3:30 pm
If dead people and illegal immigrants could vote then Hillary would totally win. Damn.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 3:33 pm
But seriously, how often is voter fraud like this happening? Obviously it will be impossible to compare these two nonexistant numbers, but I doubt that the number of abuses that will be prevented by photo IDs will be larger than the number of legitimate voters who are turned away for lack of a photo ID.
If that is true, then this policy is stupid, even if it it may not be unconstitutional.
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 4:12 pm
If you can’t get your shit together enough to bring a photo ID, I’m not sure you need to be voting.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 4:26 pm
The same could be said for literacy tests and such… but I guess you aren’t going to go there.
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 4:42 pm
Having a photo ID does not require any level of intelligence or schooling, only the desire to fill out a form (or have someone do it for you, which the government will be more than happy to help you with). Poll taxes and literacy tests require wealth and education, while a photo ID requires only effort.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 4:58 pm
Education is available for free these days also. The government even provides it for you. So all a person has to do to get literate is to put a little effort into it.
The government would be happy to help you learn how to read by providing free pubilc education.
What does it say about a person who never expended the effort to get an education? Do we really want those people to have an equal vote to elitists like you and me?
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 5:05 pm
Ideally, perhaps I would not want that. But if we cannot be ruled by an elitist cabal that includes me, then I guess everyone should get to vote. The only requirement is that you are actually you.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 5:20 pm
David, are you saying that voter fraud isn’t a problem?
Ensuring that the voting system is more efficient and less prone to fraud isn’t a stupid policy.
Regardless, the debate is whether it passes an undue burden test. I, nor the Court, thinks it too much a burden to bring a drivers license or comparable ID to the voting location.
S.C. Denney
28 Apr 08 at 5:21 pm
David, I have a somewhat tangential question for you. Is there an issue where you take a position that is significantly different than the standard/orthodox liberal one? There’s nothing wrong with liberal orthodoxy, but I cannot (at the moment) think of an issue where I’m aware of you deviating from the party norm. Please enlighten me.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 5:26 pm
I did not say that voter fraud wasn’t a problem. What I said was that I doubt that it is enough of a problem to warrant this kind of policy that probably will lead to lots of problems.
Even if everyone who has a drivers liscence/government ID is educated and informed and remembers to bring it to the booth on election day (doubtful), there are still lots of people who don’t have those things. There are evidently lots of people who do not have drivers liscences because they do not have cars and do not drive; and even though they could get a government ID card, at least some of them fail to do so. Lack of education, information, and available services tend to increase this.
That’s why I was trying to make a (quasi-satirical, but it is making more sense as I think about it) reference to literacy tests. The means to pass that obstacle and vote under the regulation is freely available to all citizens who would only just avail themselves of the government-provided opprotunity. That applies to a basic education as well as to figuring out where to get a government ID.
No doubt this policy makes the system less prone to fraud, but we can’t pretend like there is no downside whatsoever. The downside is that it is inevitably going to prevent some legitimate voters from casting their votes.
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 5:31 pm
jkkuwitzky, I’m not sure. I’m trying to think of an issue that I agree with the Republicans on, but I am having trouble coming up with that. If I end up agreeing with the Democrats on most issues, it is purely coincidental because I definitely don’t get my information from their propaganda.
Most of the things that I disagree with the Democratic Party on are issues where I think they are being too conservative, too hawkish, or just not liberal enough.
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 5:34 pm
There is a difference between liberal orthodoxy and the Democratic party, but perhaps now is not the time for such a discussion. Also, deviation from said orthodoxy definitely does not mean agreeing with Republicans. Join the contrarian center. The narcissism of small differences is loads of fun.
Also, I just ran across this interesting blog post on the original subject of this thread. While I still don’t have a real problem with this law, I think this post gets its motivations dead on.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013616.php
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 5:41 pm
Good one. I love the examples of voter fraud:
“(1) Boss Tweed stuffing ballot boxes in 1868, (2) a case in Washington state in which one person committed voter fraud, and (3) a 2003 case of fraud in Indiana which, as Stevens acknowledges, the new law wouldn’t cover because it was done via absentee ballot.”
jkkuwitzky, are there any Clinton policy positions with which you disagree? That seems to be your orthodoxy, because we all know to start a stopwatch when anyone posts something critical of her (i.e. Elrod’s quote).
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 5:49 pm
1) Negotiating with/establishing normal diplomatic relations with Cuba
2) Trade (though I tend to think that she and Obama are both full of shit when it comes to their sudden opposition to free trade)
3) Immediate withdrawal from Iraq (though I also think she and Obama will end up doing something quite different than what their campaign rhetoric suggests)
4) Maybe this is not policy-related, but I think she is too religious (though that, of course, has its political benefits)
I’ll plead guilty to defending my candidate, but not on issues where I disagree with her. I’ve been trying to let some of it go lately, but when it comes to shameless disingenuity (i.e. Elrod’s quote) I just can’t do it. Write a post about how she is wrong to oppose normalizing relations with Cuba, wrong to oppose free trade, wrong to promise an unmeasured withdrawal from Iraq, or wrong to be so religious and I’ll let it slide.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 6:00 pm
I’m taking notes…
David M. Manes
28 Apr 08 at 6:02 pm
Hey my friend eddie carson recommended this blog to me. I’m a poli sci and econ major at american university in dc and interned at mccain’s hq in arlington as well as the rnc during the midterm elections. Just to let you know for the sake of background and full disclosure. That being said when I went to vote in the primary here in dc I had to show a photo ID like everyone else in the district. I think the trade off is worth it considering it strengthens the ligitimacy of our democratic institutions. I doubt that there will be significant disenfanchisment once the public gets adjusted to the idea that you bring an ID with you to the polls not to mention once democratic organizers get adjuisted and start filling out forms for their constituencies en masse.
Alejandro
28 Apr 08 at 6:32 pm
I do, of course, retain the right to dispute the expected scurrilousness of any such posts.
Welcome, Alejandro. Its about time another Washingtonian commenter showed up around here.
jkkuwitzky
28 Apr 08 at 6:44 pm
HaHa, of course. Everyone has bias its always important to look at point of view, which is why I like to disclose dispite the bullseye it gives.
Alejandro
28 Apr 08 at 7:03 pm
Ah, interesting. Taken from the Washington blog link: “the Indiana law “requires voter ID for in-person voting and does nothing to ensure the integrity of absentee voting.”
How do you go about ensuring the validity of absentee voters?
Even if everyone who has a drivers liscence/government ID is educated and informed and remembers to bring it to the booth on election day (doubtful), there are still lots of people who don’t have those things.
According to Justice John Paul Stevens, 99% of Indiana voters have accetable forms of photo identification.
No doubt this policy makes the system less prone to fraud, but we can’t pretend like there is no downside whatsoever. The downside is that it is inevitably going to prevent some legitimate voters from casting their votes.
People are irresponsible in not obtaining photo IDs (honestly, anyone who wants to function in the free market should have some sort of photo ID, for checks, booze, cigarettes, etc) — you are right.
People are also forgetful — you are right, again.
S.C. Denney
28 Apr 08 at 7:33 pm
we have a people’s veto petition in opposition to the real ID.
i wonder how many signatures we will get.
Jesse
28 Apr 08 at 10:33 pm
There was an interesting political cartoon around on Daryl Cagel’s aggregate site a few months ago addressing this issue. It had several frames, each one showing someone using a picture ID to do different things: get into movies, but certain beverages, taking books from the libraby, getting cash at the bank, etc. The last frame is a voter being asked for a picture ID and flipping out. O political cartoons.
Ian
29 Apr 08 at 2:25 pm
Found it:
http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/09272007.jpg
Ian
29 Apr 08 at 2:31 pm
Noice! Cartoons have a way of simplying things for people.
S.C. Denney
29 Apr 08 at 3:03 pm