MA requires me to identify myself and the poll workers check me off a list. They don't ask for ID. Apparently Indiana and Georgia in 2005 were the first states to mandate that a government photo ID must be presented. The law is widely understood to be an attempt by the GOP to prevent some (mostly Democratic) poor from voting since many of them don't have photo IDs..
Last week, in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board the Supreme Court held by a 6-3 majority that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide picture identification did not violate the Constitution.
"Three Justices said the evidence offered against the requirement in Indiana did not support a challenge to the law as written — that is, a “facial” challenge – and three others said the law only imposed a minimal and justified burden on voters"
"While the Court’s main opinion said it was 'fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role' in enacting the photo ID law, it went on to say that that law was neutral in its application and was adequately supported by the justifications the state had offered."
"In discussing the claim that ID laws are needed to combat voter fraud, Stevens noted that the record in the Indiana case 'contains no evidencde of any [voter impersonation] fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.' Still, he wrote, 'it remains true that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting' in an absentee ballot scandal in 2003 in a mayoral election 'demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.'"
Wikipedia says "Under the Indiana law, voters who do not have a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot. To have their votes counted, they must visit a designated government office within 10 days and either bring a photo ID or sign a statement saying they can't afford one."
Here's a documented case of the new law preventing 12 people from legitimately voting in yesterday's primary in Indiana. 12 nuns. "A dozen Indiana nuns were turned away from a polling place by a fellow sister yesterday because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph."
"The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, did not get one but came to the precinct anyway. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives. They were not given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, McGuire said. 'You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts.'"
ACS Blog wrote that Supreme Court found "Without solid proof of burden in the record, Indiana’s justifications for its laws were good enough." Maybe there will be more challenges.
More on the Ruling
Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog (seriously!) has more about the standard used in the ruling and comparing it to Harper, where the court struck down a poll tax applied equally to everyone. In Crawford the court ruled that strict scrutiny doesn't apply here and I learned that "Strict scrutiny is the second most stringent standard of judicial review" and that it's second to "super strict scrutiny".
William Mcgeveran talks about the privacy implications of the ruling. "But in Crawford, there is no mention of the privacy impact of turning voting into yet another important activity that you cannot accomplish without "showing your papers." And since it is now basically impossible to board an aircraft, enter a federal building, or cash a check without showing ID, voter ID requirements become just another event in an accelerating trend toward an ID society."
The LA Times writes how this ruling is another example of Roberts attempt to use narrow rulings to bring together majorities.
"In the past, the court was willing to strike down laws before they went into effect out of concern that the rights of some people might be violated. For example, the justices used that approach to void laws that regulated abortion or restricted pornography on the Internet. But since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the court three years ago, that approach has been cast aside...[the new model is to ] Produce evidence that a law has actually violated someone's rights, and name names if you can. Only then might the court rule that a law is unconstitutional for those in the same situation."
"Lazarus said the voter ID and lethal injection decisions were 'an expression of the chief's stated preference for narrow rulings. What is interesting is that Stevens has been willing now to join that effort, as has [Justice Anthony M.] Kennedy.'
In both cases, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone further and closed the door to future challenges."
No comments:
Post a Comment