Partisan fissures over voter ID

[buckthesystem]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...isrc=newsletter

Partisan Fissures Over Voter ID

Justices to Hear Challenge to Law

By Robert Barnes

Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, December 25, 2007; A01

The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.

The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?

The answer so far has depended greatly on whether you are a Democratic or Republican politician -- or even, some believe, judge.

"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.

His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.

For justices still hearing from the public about their role in the 2000 election -- "It's water over the deck; get over it," Justice Antonin Scalia impatiently told a questioner at a college forum this year -- the partisan implications of the issue are hard to miss.

The case has pitted Democrats against Republicans, conservative legal foundations against liberal ones, civil rights organizations against the Bush administration.

"Voter ID laws have become the most politicized" of governments' efforts to try to limit fraud and voting irregularities, said Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who filed a brief supporting the law's challengers. "It's in the nation's best interest for the court to resolve it."

Hasen is one of those who point out that the partisan division on voter ID laws often extends to the judiciary. Not only did the 7th Circuit's 2 to 1 vote to uphold Indiana's law break down along the lines of which party nominated the judges; so, with one exception, did the full court's decision not to reconsider the ruling. Michigan's Supreme Court justices -- who are elected in partisan races -- upheld that state's voter ID law, with the five Republicans voting to support it and the two Democrats opposing it.

Hasen does not believe that the decisions reflect a desire to aid one political party over another, but rather a philosophical divide on the question of whether protecting the integrity of the voting process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many eligible voters as possible take part in the process.

"People come in with a worldview, and judges are no different," Hasen said.

The Indiana case seems to offer a perfect example. The state's Republican-led legislature passed the law in 2005 requiring voters to have ID, even though the state had never prosecuted a case of voter impersonation.

Democrats there challenged the requirement as unconstitutional, although they have not produced a person who wanted to vote but was unable to do so because of the law.

What is undisputed is that the number of states with such laws is growing. The Supreme Court made it clear in a 1992 case involving write-in candidates in Hawaii that states have leeway in regulating the voting process. Subjecting every restriction to constitutional "strict scrutiny" standards would conflict with the states' ability to run efficient elections, the court said.

And in 2006, in a relatively short and unsigned opinion issued just weeks before the election, the court agreed that a voter-approved initiative in Arizona that required voters to show proof of citizenship could go into effect.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita ® said voter fraud was something he was asked about "almost daily" by constituents. "At the Kiwanis Club, the chamber of commerce groups, people would say, 'Why aren't you asking who I am when I vote?' " Rokita said.

The state law he and the legislature came up with requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID that has an expiration date, such as a driver's license or a passport. Nondrivers can receive an identification card from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Voters without ID may cast provisional ballots, but then must appear before their county clerk or board of elections within 10 days. There, they must show a photo ID or at least two other forms of identification, such as a certified birth certificate or naturalization papers.

Most other states that call for photo IDs are less strict, or make it easier to cast provisional ballots. Virginia, for instance, allows voters to sign sworn statements attesting to their identity. Maryland and the District of Columbia do not require voters to show a photo ID, except for first-time voters who registered by mail.

"Virtually everything you do, you have to show a photo ID," Rokita said in an interview, and the "sacred civic transaction" of voting should be no different.

The lower courts have agreed with Indiana. Posner's majority opinion said that the "benefits of voting to the individual voter are elusive" because major elections "are never decided by just one vote."

He said there is a deferential scale the court should follow in evaluating voting requirements. "The fewer people harmed by a law, the less total harm there is to balance against whatever benefits the law might confer," he wrote.

But Evans said that since the state had presented no evidence of voter fraud by impersonators, the law was not solving any problem. "Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?" Evans wrote. "I think not."

Even Posner alluded to the partisan nature of the debate. "No doubt most people who don't have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates," he wrote.

Both sides cite studies that they believe show that the law has not resulted in lower turnouts for minorities and others or, alternately, show that minorities are most likely to be affected. There are numerous media accounts and other reports of fraudulent voting, as well as a corresponding study from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud," which attempts to knock down many of them.

Brennan Center Executive Director Michael Waldman, a vigorous opponent of voter ID laws, said he fears that the partisan nature of the debate obscures "the actual fact that there are millions of Americans who don't have the kind of ID" that the Indiana law requires.

"We as a country should be finding ways to make it easier for people to vote," Waldman said.

He added that voter impersonation is the least common kind of voter fraud and that Indiana's ID law does nothing to combat what has been proven to have illegally influenced an Indiana election -- absentee balloting fraud.

Rokita responded that that is not a case for inaction: "Why should we wait until we become victims of identity theft, which is what this is?"

The combined cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, will be argued Jan. 9.

[MorningGlory]

I don't have a problem with the requirement to show photo I.D. in order to vote. Here, in the U.S., if you don't have a photo I.D. you are either not an American citizen or too young to vote. Those who don't drive can get a state I.D. in any of the fifty states. I can only conclude that those who are fightng this requirement are trying to keep the way open for voters that have no legal right to vote.

[buckthesystem]

I don't have a problem with the requirement to show photo I.D. in order to vote. Here, in the U.S., if you don't have a photo I.D. you are either not an American citizen or too young to vote. Those who don't drive can get a state I.D. in any of the fifty states. I can only conclude that those who are fightng this requirement are trying to keep the way open for voters that have no legal right to vote.

From then article: "But Evans said that since the state had presented no evidence of voter fraud by impersonators, the law was not solving any problem. "Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?" Evans wrote. "I think not."

What about the above?

Presumably you'd rather have brownshirts standing there demanding "papers please"?

[O'Dannyboy]

The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?

This is a stupid question. It's not like they are requiring an I.D. to use the bathroom at the mall. It's voting! Voting is a constitutional right for United States Citizens. I believe you should have to prove your citizenship in order to vote in this country. You shouldn't necessarily have to prove your citizenship to drive here but you should be required to have a passport and a drivers license. They require you to prove your identity in order to immigrate here. they should also require you to prove you are not only a u.s. citizen but you should have to prove you are who you say you are in order to vote. When you have illegal immigrants with multiple false I.D.s then the system has been compromised and needs to be improved.

[MorningGlory]

I don't have a problem with the requirement to show photo I.D. in order to vote. Here, in the U.S., if you don't have a photo I.D. you are either not an American citizen or too young to vote. Those who don't drive can get a state I.D. in any of the fifty states. I can only conclude that those who are fightng this requirement are trying to keep the way open for voters that have no legal right to vote.

From then article: "But Evans said that since the state had presented no evidence of voter fraud by impersonators, the law was not solving any problem. "Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?" Evans wrote. "I think not."

What about the above?

Presumably you'd rather have brownshirts standing there demanding "papers please"?

Oh come on, bts; aren't you living in New Zealand? Or is it Australia? We don't have 'brownshirts' here in the U.S. so don't presume what I would rather have. When you vote here you go through a volunteer poll worker. There are NO police at polling stations. And, take it from one who votes here in Texas, there are plenty of people voting who can't speak English. While this doesn't mean that they're not citizens, it certainly makes one wonder. Both major parties are courting the Hispanic vote in the U.S. (Most other immigrant groups are too small to court, apparently.) With a conservative estimate of 12 million illegals in the country the possibility of voter fraud is very real. We don't want our futures changed by people that have no right to vote in our country; just as you wouldn't.

[forrestkc]

I don't have a problem with the requirement to show photo I.D. in order to vote. Here, in the U.S., if you don't have a photo I.D. you are either not an American citizen or too young to vote. Those who don't drive can get a state I.D. in any of the fifty states. I can only conclude that those who are fightng this requirement are trying to keep the way open for voters that have no legal right to vote.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the notion either. I think the problem is that its probably unconstitutional.

Similarly, I would like to see significant restrictions on how money, specifically special interest and corporate money is used in elections. The problem with that is that its unconstitutional. Same thing with the line item veto.

Voting is a right, not a privilege like say driving a car, thus what are reasonable requirements for driving a vehicle are not from a constitutional perspective reasonable requirements for voting.

[rtwo]

I don't have a problem with the requirement to show photo I.D. in order to vote. Here, in the U.S., if you don't have a photo I.D. you are either not an American citizen or too young to vote. Those who don't drive can get a state I.D. in any of the fifty states. I can only conclude that those who are fightng this requirement are trying to keep the way open for voters that have no legal right to vote.

Personally, I don't have any problem with the notion either. I think the problem is that its probably unconstitutional.

Similarly, I would like to see significant restrictions on how money, specifically special interest and corporate money is used in elections. The problem with that is that its unconstitutional. Same thing with the line item veto.

Voting is a right, not a privilege like say driving a car, thus what are reasonable requirements for driving a vehicle are not from a constitutional perspective reasonable requirements for voting.

Voting -is- a right -- for citizens. I'd like to see a demonstrable hardship for people before ruling out the ID system. Personally I think Hillary hates the idea because it rules out the dead and illegals.

[forrestkc]

Voting -is- a right -- for citizens. I'd like to see a demonstrable hardship for people before ruling out the ID system. Personally I think Hillary hates the idea because it rules out the dead and illegals.

Having been a poll watcher before, I have never witnessed the dead or illegals vote. 50 years ago, the system was so corrupt that kind of thing was a problem. Today the problem is more an issue of disenfranchisement than voter fraud. You have a constitutional right to reasonably exercise the rights of citizenship without having to "show your papers". Now, of course, there are plenty of exceptions and personally I don't see anything wrong with showing ID to vote. However, I would not be surprised if it were ruled as unconstitutional.

[MorningGlory]

Voting is a right, not a privilege like say driving a car, thus what are reasonable requirements for driving a vehicle are not from a constitutional perspective reasonable requirements for voting.

Actually, forrest, I am pretty sure the Constitution doesn't even guarantee the right of Americans to vote. I would have to research this to be sure but I think that most voting requirements come from the individual states. I'm not 100% on that but that's how I remember it. Most states offer free I.D. to those who can't pay the fee so who would be left out by the requirement? Other than those who have no right to vote, of course.

[O'Dannyboy]

Someone please tell me HOW requiring proper identification is unconstitutional. In my mind requiring proper identification is no more unconstitutional than requiring a drivers license or automobile insurance. Heck, there are people who believe freedom of speech is unconstitutional even though it's IN the constitution. Some people seem to be under the delusion that the constitution guarantees our happiness rather than protect our right to it. In this article you can see some of the arguments and how desperate they are to accommodate the laziest of "would be" voters. It seems the biggest argument is that a law requiring photo I.D. would pose a "hardship" for elderly and poor. If the elderly are able enough to make it to the polls then they are able enough to get an I.D. If they are incapable of making it to the polls they can still file an absentee ballot like the rest of us. As for the "poor" excuse, it has already been proposed that the states could wave the fee for those who can't afford it and STILL they wind up shooting the new law down. It's been stated that this is a partisan issue. Democrats argue that the republicans are pushing for these laws because they hope to hinder the democratic voter base by making it harder for them to vote. All they can see is the affect on their numbers and not the real issue.

The democrats were unsuccessful in pushing through an amnesty bill so in the mean time they will try to increase their power by winning more seats. The easiest way for them to do this is to encourage voter fraud. They are counting on the votes of illegal immigrants as well as the votes of those who are currently dependent on the government. What many democrats don't realize is when their leaders have tilted the balance in their favor they WILL pass amnesty without securing the border, they WILL push to socialize health care and they WILL raise taxes. No ifs, ands or buts about it. And that would only be the beginning.