« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Court Upholds Voter ID Law
Finally, the country will be rescued from its long nightmare struggle with voter fraud! And if certain voters find it harder to get their ballot cast, then so be it.
The Supreme Court has ruled that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights. The decision validates Republican-inspired voter ID laws.The court vote 6-3 to uphold Indiana's strict photo ID requirement. Democrats and civil rights groups say the law would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots.
As those who have followed this issue will remember, this is not a surprise. As Jeffrey Toobin put it early this year:
As a general matter, in recent years the Court has been reluctant to find what is charged in this case: a violation of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. (The notable exception, to belabor the issue, was for a plaintiff named George W. Bush.) In the end, though, it will not be the judiciary that rescues democracy; whatever the obstacles, the problems with the ballot box must be solved at the ballot box.
A little more detail in an update from the AP:
The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy.Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented....
"We cannot conclude that the statute imposes 'excessively burdensome requirements' on any class of voters," Stevens said.
Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.
But in dissent, Souter said Indiana's voter ID law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens."
Update: Here are excerpts from the opinions from the AP.
Update: Some thoughts on the decision by voting law expert Rick Hasen.
Update: And here's Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's (D-VT) response:
Today the Supreme Court failed to protect access to the ballot box for some of the most vulnerable Americans. We have seen an effort by this administration, its political appointees and some partisans to use the specter of purported "voter fraud" for political advantage. They do so at the expense of vulnerable communities and have excluded millions of elderly, low-income, disabled, and minority voters, even though in-person voter fraud has been proven time and time again to be a myth.
Justice Souter's dissent rightly observed that "[i]t is simply not plausible to assume here, with no evidence of in-person voter impersonation fraud in a State, and very little of it nationwide, that a public perception of such fraud is nevertheless 'inherent' in an election system providing severe criminal penalties for fraud and mandating signature checks at the polls. ... The State's requirements here, that people without cars travel to a motor vehicle registry and that the poor who fail to do that get to their county seats within 10 days of every election, likewise translate into unjustified economic burdens uncomfortably close to the outright $1.50 fee we struck down 42 years ago. Like that fee, the onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise."
The evidence in the Crawford case did not allow the Court to evaluate the impact it will have on voters in Indiana, so it is not a blanket endorsement of the constitutionality of laws requiring voters to present photo identification. However, the impact of the Court's divided holding could embolden those partisans determined to use restrictive voter identification laws to elevate politics over fairness and inclusion. It is unfortunate that the Supreme Court could not come to a meaningful consensus which would have provided guidance to other States considering such legislation.
I wish the Court instead had drawn a clear line in favor of expanding access to the fundamental franchise of voting. For far too long, our nation tolerated the gulf between our foundational principles and the voting experience for many Americans. We endured a shameful history of barriers erected around the ballot box. Now is not the time to turn back the clock to the days of disenfranchising laws supposedly designed to "protect" the polls. Now more than ever, the myth of in-person voter fraud should not be used to suppress the democratic participation of the American people.
Nothing is more central to our democracy, and to American citizenship, than the right to vote. It is fundamental because it secures the effectiveness of other constitutional rights. Denying a fundamental right -- the right to vote -- because a person is indigent, lacks a birth certificate, or has no access to a vehicle, goes against America's better values. As the world's model for democracy, we are a better nation than that.
Josh
Zachary
Why doesn't the ID requirement constitute an unconstitutional poll tax? Isn't the cost of such an id considerably more expensive than poll taxes used to be?
April 28, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I would be interested in the readings of the opinions in regards to your query, JK!
April 28, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
ah, the AP article suggests that the ID is free. So that would explain why it's all about equal protection, rather than poll taxes.
April 28, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it is free, I checked it myself. The Indiana BMV explicitly states that an ID for voting purposes is free. I don't agree with voting ID laws, but it doesn't look like this one is creating a poll tax.
April 28, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a quick follow up on the free ID - isn't that putting a burden on taxpayers to fund their own elections? Granted, we do that already, but it seems like issuing free ID's increases the operating cost of the BMV to Indiana taxpayers. As a Democrat, this doesn't bother me, but I'd have to think that most traditional Republicans wouldn't go for a law that increases the cost to the taxpayer. I imagine when they passed the law they just raised the fees or fines on things like DWI's or traffic tickets. Just a thought though.
April 28, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Stevens' opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired."
Which would, of course, involve proving a negative.
April 28, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it wouldn't. "Proving a negative" is asking for proof that something didn't happen. Asking for proof of voting rights violations, seems to be standard evidentiary procedure.
April 28, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was shown, the Court ignored it.
April 28, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, it wasn't. so, no they didn't.
only a couple hundred people had voted under the law at the time the case was brought. the case was brought to prevent potential/inevitable impairment of rights, not to redress actual impairment of rights.
April 28, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't read it yet, but here's the link: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf
April 28, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rev up the voter registration buses again.
April 28, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
monkeywrench is exactly right. I think the silver lining in this SCOTUS decision is that it'll force us, Dems, to finally match or better the Repugs in organization, voter registration, supervision of the voting process at the ballot places, closer scrutiny - county by county - of the voter lists, etc.
Kerry's loss in 2004 was a painful lesson for the DNC. I think since then they made some progress, and we've seen the results in 2006 elections. However, much more needs to be done this year (and beyond!) - in infrastructure, voter education and "get out the vote" machinery. The voter ID laws could be the catalyst that will finally force the DNC to close the gap with the RNC in these areas.
Indeed, with the Dems enjoying double-digit advantages in registered voters, outpolling the Repugs on almost every important issue - domestic or foreign, and now also raising far more cash than the Repugs, the 2008 elections should not be close: we must win -- across the board and by convincing, "impossible to steal" margins. If we, Dems, can't get our sh*t together and accomplish this -- especially this year, ... well, I'd rather not finish that sentence.
April 28, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great, now it's even harder to vote! Good job U.S. Supreme Court!
I'm fully expecting Florida and other Republican-led swing states to lead the way strict new voter ID laws. Not only must voters produce IDs, but they must have in-state IDs that have not expired PLUS a valid Social Security card OR a valid Passport.
So you just moved to Florida from New York and still have your NY driver's license? Too bad, you can't vote. Lost your Social Security card, or forgot to bring it to the polling place because they didn't advertise the strict new law? Sorry, out of luck.
I'm just hypothesizing here, but I could easily see this becoming a clusterf**k. In other words, the Republican's dream come true.
April 28, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And since poll workers are almost exclusively unpaid or minimally paid for their work on election day...
Watch out for a couple dozen hundred "overzealous volunteers" denying the vote to citizens because "document problems."
It is ridiculous to put a volunteer in the position of verifying (and accepting or denying) ID.
April 28, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems as though we Dems must report to the polls in massive numbers to offset the repugs voter suppression and outright illegal tactics. Repeat after me " I will vote for a Democrat, no matter the race or gender, wether I like them or not". We have to, have to, have to MUST win the white house and the Congress. Don't worry about the avatar, I will change it.
April 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like the avatar.
April 28, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
klaatu baratu nikto
i like the avatar, gort
April 28, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is effing depressing. And we have another generation of this kind of crap to live through. Goodbye voting rights, goodbye Roe v. Wade, goodbye death penalty limits, goodbye, goodbye, goodbye.
The Court is stacked. Might as well steel ourselves for another 20-30 years of the destruction of civil liberties. The only thing that could have an impact would be a citizen movement to put in place the kind of Democratic-controlled Congress that would pass federal laws mandating the freest polls possible, etc., etc.
OK, I'm going to stay off the political blogs all day so I can wipe it from my mind while at work. Thank heavens for leechblock, which allows me to impose a lockdown on listed sites whenever I want. See https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/98949.
April 28, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reason number 3473 why Democrats *have* to win this election. I want our Supreme Court and our Justice Department back, damnit!
April 28, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the average cost of a state photo ID for someone without a driver's license?
Where I live in Canada, it was $25.00 renewable every five years with an updated birth certificate. Now if I were living on a poverty income, that $25.00 would be excessive.
On another note:
Just as Europe is reducing the need for passports and ID between countries, we in North America are going in the opposite direction.
April 28, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point,Phoebe, it's my main argument for the party having to be united in November. But it's also a little bit tricky, because if you want to get those wacko Reagan Democrats, and even Catholics, emphasizing Roe v Wade might have the opposite effect. Even "voter ID" is tricky, because many whites do think it's OK, because we all know "black people commit fraud". So we need to emphasize just how aligned this Court is with the Corporate interests, how systematically it has ruled for the Bush Administration in respect to questions of personal freedom. Finally, my use of the Court is to appeal to the traditional Democratic voter who is letting this primary so anger them that they won't support the eventual nominee if it's not their person.
But who, you would think, would be enlightened enough to realize what 4 more years of a Republican would bring. And yes, I am thinking of people who claim that Hillary would be no different from McCain....friends, on this issue it's just not true.
April 28, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other thing: this "victory" shows again the power the Republicans have when they "frame an issue". Of course there's "voter fraud", of course it's extensive. Why? Because Republicans say it is. Facts to the contrary be damned. Just as saw framing such as "tax and spend liberals", or "partial-birth abortion" become "true" and acceptable labels for a lot of the public. Putting Dems on the defensive time and time again. And you don't win when you're on the defensive politically. I know the DNC is aware of this and trying to play it's own labeling game....but often too late and without the Echo Machine to proliferate it, is less effective. But we need to keep working on it anyway.
April 28, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
To paraphrase idiotic:
April 28, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is only one way this ruling can be implemented in a way that doesn't violate the 14th amendment. That is for the Registrar of Voters to issue photo ID's to every registered voter, free. And, even that is onerous. I can register to vote by a mail in application/affidavit, but to get the free photo ID I would have to report to the Registrar's office, taking time off work, and paying for my transport to that office. So, it is still an unconstitutional requirement.
But, it is certainly a wet dream come true for Republicans. Just in time too. This should substantially cut the number of votes for Democrats this year.
The remedy, if we can win the elections this year is for President Obama to immediately send appointments for 4 new Supreme Court Justices to the Senate for confirmation, and for the Senate to confirm them. That increases the Supreme Court to 13 members, and gives it a liberal majority. Believe it or not, that is perfectly constitutional.
April 28, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
/agree
You should be given a free ID when you register to vote. Sounds like a simple solution. If you lose your ID then get a a free replacement or, well, tough luck. You disenfranchised *yourself* by losing your voter ID.
Now, about those voting machines....!!!!
April 28, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no, no, no, NO! Now, THAT would be an undue financial hardship on the states! We MUST remember that protecting the STATE's interest in the ELECTIONS is FAR, FAR more important than protecting the right to vote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
/snark
Oh my god I have to go throw up now...
April 28, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is just another instance of fraud perpetrated by the Bush administration and republicans aginst the citizens of this country. As far as I know, and try as they might, there were no cases of voter fraud brought by the DOJ that resulted in conviction. They have been running this into the ground but have not yet shown proof to substantiate the allegation.
So what we have now is a law that will likely disenfranchise some number of voters under the guise of fixing a problem that doesn't exist. And where we have election officials who have a bias and are willing to bend or perhaps even break the law we are sure to have cases where people are denied the right to vote simply because the SC has granted an authority, that heretofore did not exist, with the certainty that the authority granted by this law will be abused. It is an absolute this will occur.
If anything, the result of this will be wholesale election fraud due to officials denying individuals the right to cast their ballot.
This is par for our government. They get most everything they do ass backwards. I'm quite sure that in Vegas the smart money always follows the statistical probability that government will screw up. It's the closest thing to a sure bet I can imagine. And if it's republican led its very sure.
April 28, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Woah woah woah. Everyone needs to slow down here and think.
If exercised the right way we can use this to flip the situation on its head. Wouldn't you think that having an ID could also help to protect your right to vote? If you have your ID then they have no excuse to disenfranchise you. No more "You're not on the list" excuses or other despicable tactics used to prevent the elderly and minorites from voting. And if they should try, we can than get in front of a television camera with our ID card and say "I was disenfranchised". Boom.
April 28, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just remember Jefferson's three boxes of controlling our government:
Ballot box, jury box, and ammo box.
In this case, two out of three have been eliminated. A few hundred more Supreme Court decisions like this one and high gas prices will be the least of our concerns.
April 28, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does.
This court doesn't even use the Constitution of precedent as reference. They search for the most fascist outcome and rule that way.
What our country has become is a nightmare worse than anyone could have envisioned.
April 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
The congress should pass a requirement that states with voter ID laws must provide for a free photo identification card (they can still charge for drivers licenses) ... that way, all financial burden is removed from voting, and repugs get their voter ID laws ... They could also provide rules for ease of access to application for an ID card ...
April 28, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear that right now we can't beat these guys. The Administration stalls, no one testifies, documents are withheld and they do whatever they want. The Supremes are now pretty much on their side. So, what to do? Simply find a cheap easily accessible way for Americans to obtain a photo I.D. Why can't you walk into a bank or a grocery store with a social security card and a utility bill with your address, have your picture snapped and walk out with an ID. Most people that do not have drivers licenses with photos still leave their homes and go to a bank, a market, a health center, the post office, etc. Just making getting a photo ID easy. If you can walk in the Department of Motor Vehicles and get a photo drivers license that serves as an ID, surely we can make it easy. We have to be smarter and beat them at their own game.
April 28, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh huh. Just like in 2000.
Why are these people elected for life? Didn't that go out with Kings?
April 28, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a national election there should be federal voting laws, not individual states' requirements.
from a Canadian
April 28, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
WORST. SUPREME COURT. EVER.
April 28, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't this open a medium-sized can of worms? Initial worms - what paperwork does one have to have to get the ID card in the first place? Proof of residence, SS#, etc? Who's job will it be to ok that paperwork and hand over the ID card? At the polling site, who's job will it be to ok the ID card, and what's to prevent a prickly poll worker from saying, "No, yours looks like a fake." Can a VISA card with my face and signature on it be used in lieu of one of these? Maybe these sound outlandish, but from what I witnessed poll workers doing during the California recall election, things can get surprisingly outlandish in those places. It sounds so easy on the face of it - just hand out free ID cards and all will be well. I can see it ballooning into a paperwork nightmare already...
Also, I wholeheartedly agreed with what another poster said earlier - Republicans are actually willing to fork over their tax dollars for this? I now live East Tennessee and I am telling you, no one wants to pay for anything here. I can hear the cries of unfair taxation right now - I can get my own ID card - why should I have to pay for some lazy sleazebag to get theirs? It's all echoing through my brain already.
April 28, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's stop the whining and let's put pressure on our representatives to create a new voting rights bill explicitly banning voter ID requirements beyond the signature verification that has been used in the past.
April 28, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's bring back the poll tax while we are at it. What the hell.
April 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its the illegals isn't it. Thats what chaps the ACLU's hide. In America its not hard to get an ID. Making sure their legitimate, thats the rub. The ultra leftwing liberals don't want to keep the identity of America. Its sad too that their Democrats. Why don't you start your own commie party?
April 28, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you jam it up your ass with a rusty chainsaw?
April 28, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Commie? Commie?
That is so 30 years ago. I thought the standard 'so's your mamma' argument for conservatards these days was, 'islamofascist'. Geez.
Also, Obama is a secret Muslim who will kill all the whiteys and, if elected, Hillary will tax us at 100%, force us all to marry gay and have mandatory annual abortions and hire Al Gore to force us all to trade in our cars for bicycles.
I swear, if we could tax Teh Stupid which regularly spouts forth from rightards, we could pay off the national debt overnight.
April 28, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this is just another scheme for the government to catalog citizens and possess still more information with which to exercise control. How many variations on garnering the minutiae of our lives does it take before privacy is understood to be something we no longer have.
It is very apparent that government uses (abuses) information in ways wholly inconsistent with democracy. Look what Bush did to have his war. He manipulated it (information) every inch of the way to obtain a specific result. I've no doubt that having individual real names associated with voting and having the need to maintain them current in order to be able to vote will be a boon for those who anticipate using that information in unintended ways. I think it pretty much a guarantee this will occur. Politically, the value of this information is incalculable.
April 28, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This seems a definite step towards a national ID card law. Certainly if the thought is that immigrants illegally vote, that's voter fraud and probably as significant a factor as the "fraud" that the court used to defend this carding law. "You have papers?" may be a standard greeting in America's near future.
As to the issue of requiring an ID card to vote, you'd think the court might have required voting places to also provide ID cards. The machines that are used at DMVs aren't that complex or expensive. Certainly they're probably within the range of the new electronic vote fraud machines. Why not require voter ID card preparation machines at all voting stations? If the percentage of people that don't have some DMV like ID is low, it shouldn't even mean much of a delay. If the cost is too much, why is that cost, transferred to poor people, considered acceptable?
April 28, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, honestly? I don't see why having to show ID at the polls is an excruciatingly difficult requirement to fulfil--especially when most people already have such ID, and in any case it is free to those who don't have it.
and as to those of you scoffing about the "non-problem" of voter fraud, I'll bet you found it a bit of a problem during those weeks in 2000, watching Florida count its hanging chads.
and no, I'm not a Republican.
April 28, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That wasn't "voter fraud" that was "vote counting fraud" or as it turned out election rigging. But votes didn't matter since the Supreme Court intervened and appointed its President.
April 29, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back in 2004, I did some poll monitoring in Reading, PA for Election Protection. In 2000, in the same precinct when no one was working, the poll workers (little old white ladies) had told Latinos and Latinas who were American citizens and registered to vote, "You can't vote here. This election is just for real Americans. Come back when you speak English." They & the ACLU won their lawsuit, but that didn't give them back their chance to vote.
In 2004, when Election Protection, the Democratic Party, and the DOJ had people watching the polls, they did everything they could to stop people (mostly Latino/a and black people, including a few Republicans) from voting. They moved the polling station from the address people had gotten on their voter cards in the mail. They pretended the computers were broken (but when we sent in our cutest, blondest, least threatening lawyer to ask, faux-ditzily, what was going on, suddenly the computers were magically working). They opened the polls 25 minutes late, disenfranchising everyone who was in line at 7 a.m. who couldn't wait around before making their morning shifts. They followed voters into the poll booths and watched them vote. They demanded photo ID (even though demanding photo ID was unlawful at PA law), and looked for every excuse to hoodwink properly registered voters into using provisional ballots when they were entitled to use real ones.
So yeah, I'm a bit skeptical that this partisan photo-ID requirement, designed to the illusory menace of in-person voter fraud, is adopted in good faith. I can't believe Justice Stevens fell for it :(
April 29, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
John Paul Stevens said that?!?!? Is he going senile?
April 29, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink