CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– LEGAL AFFAIRS
Jan. 3, 2008 – 1:37 p.m.
Voter ID Court Challenges Expected to Have Big Impact on 2008 Elections
By Keith Perine, CQ Staff
A pair of closely watched voting rights cases headed to the Supreme Court next week could have a greater effect on the 2008 elections than anything happening in Iowa or New Hampshire.
The high court will hear oral arguments Jan. 9 in two cases challenging the validity of an Indiana law that requires voters to produce photo identification in order to cast ballots.
Court watchers say the high court’s opinion will center on the question of what standard should be used in balancing individual voter rights against Indiana’s interest in conducting fair elections.
Opponents of the law argue it is an unconstitutional burden on voters. They say the Supreme Court should give the law “strict scrutiny” and reject it because Indiana cannot cite a single instance of voter fraud that the statute would have prevented.
Supporters say that the court should see the law as a reasonable requirement that does not unduly deprive anyone of the right to vote.
A federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit both decided the Indiana cases in the state’s favor. Voter identification laws in other states also have been challenged in court.
The standard of review that the Supreme Court is expected to outline in the cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party et al. v. Rokita et al., would then apply in other legal challenges to voter identification requirements across the nation.
“It could potentially transform election law in this country,” said Deborah Goldberg of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s School of Law, who opposes the Indiana statute.
Both sides have been forced to rely on thin empirical evidence. While Indiana cannot cite any cases of preventable voter fraud, neither can the law’s challengers point to specific people who would not be able to vote because of the law, which has not taken effect.
Bradley A. Smith, a Capital University law professor and former Federal Election Commission chairman, said the Supreme Court should take “a wait-and-see attitude” on the issue until a fuller record is developed.
“There may be much less at stake in this case than meets the eye,” Smith said.
The Indiana cases will be argued before the court amid a heightened partisan atmosphere regarding voting regulations since the closely contested 2000 presidential election.
Republicans have tended to favor new voter identification laws, which critics say disproportionately affect lower-income — and mostly Democratic — voters. Democrats have pushed for laws such as election- day registration aimed at making it easier for people to vote.
Other controversies are swirling around the November elections as well, such as questions about the reliability of touch-screen voting and allegations that secretaries of state, the officials responsible for regulating elections, are too partisan.
Comments
It comes down to which way, as in every case, that Justice Kennedy sways. However, looking at his past opinions, these voter ID laws will be upheld. And rightfully so!
The voter ID law is a solution looking for a problem. It is a Republican scheme to limit voting. The Republicans know that if they restrict voters the GOP has a much better chance of winning. It is a cynical and undemocratic tactic.
It would be quite simple if all state government photo IDs were provided free with free transportation to the site where the photo is to be taken. But that isn't what this is about. This is a method of weeding out the poor by way of an alternate to the poll tax. When I lived in Baltimore, I was amazed to learn that more than 40% of the population had no vehicles or need for driver's licenses. They certainly had no need for passports that cost close to $100.
John, On what basis do you say that these voter ID laws should "rightfully" be upheld? They are a polite way of excluding those voters who the proponents of these laws would rather not vote. I've voted in elections since 1980 and have never been asked to produce identification at the polls. The amount of fraud you are going to eliminate is far outweighed by the number of voters who will be excluded. Your version of elitism is something this country has had entirely too much of in the past 8 years.
Hmmm.....a "voter's identification card"? Perhaps we need a new poll tax, as we had in the Southern States pre 1968? Do we need a "literacy test" again? What is GOPING on? Let's try hard to avoid the racism that seems implicit in this newest scheme of the republicons....we need democracy, not neo-confederatism.
Note that in spite of all the evidence about voter fraud and electronic vote machine hacking the Democrats have done nothing, as usual. Seems like they relish a good whipping.
I am of two minds about this: one, because I live in a state with a HUGE illegal immigrant population (and they aren't just from mexico!) I don't want them voting in my city/county/state/country elections. They don't have the right, they're not citizens. Two, I think these laws are designed to prevent people who for whatever reason can't or don't have ID but are perfectly legal, to vote. So what's the answer? In the short term, I think that having an ID that identifies you as you, and is legal ID is the only answer. God knows that the illegals here have had a huge impact on our state's governance over the past 20 years.
Purple finger prints did just fine for Iraqis, haw can America demand anything less. Finger print readers are common and cheap and easy to verify, and everyone carries an unchallengeable selection at their finger tips at no extra cost. What could be simpler? But then it is not vote fraud that concerns folk, but the ability to keep Democrats from voting.
I don't know about anyone else. but around here (TN) we have to show our voter's registration card.
so, "freedom," you want every person in this country to give exemplars of their fingerprints to the federal and state government? you think that will solve this problem? my god...talk about an invasion of privacy leading to less freedom. yes, you may think i'm being reactionary, but just think of the implications...the government decides to watch who is voting. they have all of the data collected. these days, the feds don't have ready access to voter rolls, only states do. and take it a (way scarier) step further...if we're using touch-screen voting machines, then it's pretty easy to hack them (see 2004 election) and the fingerprints could be matched to votes. no more anonymous voting system. and i don't think i need to explain to anyone why it's bad to allow those in power to know who didn't vote for them... why don't we give free IDs (and transportation) to everyone who needs it? free public transit on voting day, and make it a holiday like in so many other countries. let's celebrate our system, rather than referring to it as a "duty." we'd have much better voter turn out, and therefore a much more representative system. the end.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: