American Values Alliance | Practical voice for progressive valuesAmerican Values Alliance | Practical voice for progressive valuesIn a comment/question appended to Bil Browning’s very generous post about the Supreme Court’s decision last Tuesday to hear the constitutional challenge to Indiana’s photo ID for voting law, Lalita Amos asks the question most frequently posed to those of us fighting this law: “What’s the big deal about requiring voters to show ID?” Lalita and others who have asked that same question deserve an answer.
Indiana conceded that there is absolutely no evidence that any voter in its history has ever been charged with impersonating another voter to cast a fraudulent ballot. The right of every adult citizen to vote is an inherent political right, one that can be interfered with or burdened by the State only upon a showing that a particular regulation or requirement is necessary to preserve the purity of elections. As the Supreme Court ruled over 40 years ago: “The right to vote freely for the candidate of one’s choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government”. The right to vote is the only way to insure that our government is truly representative of our citizens.
On the other hand, there are many thousands of people in Indiana, and millions more in the larger society around us, who because they are poor, elderly, disabled or homeless do not own a car or perhaps have stopped driving because of the infirmities of age. For those citizens, the requirement to produce a government-issued ID with an expiration date involves considerable economic and logistical burdens. The last census showed that 7.6% of Indiana households did not own an automobile. Many of those persons rely on public transportation and the generosity of friends and neighbors for mobility. They are also the people who are most dependent upon governmental services and who thus have much at stake from the outcome of elections.
Some would say, but elections are seldom decided by a small number of votes. Tell that to the people of Florida in 2000. In our form of winner-takes-all elections, the winners are the “deciders”. They decide which sovereign nations we will invade, and whose children will serve and die in far-off lands.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor just before she left the Court reminded her colleagues that State legislatures are not wholly disinterested parties when it comes to passing election laws, as they are “controlled by the political party or parties in power, which presumably have an incentive to shape the rules of the electoral game to their own benefit.” When the Indiana legislature passed the 2005 law, all Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats, including every African-American legislator in both the House and Senate, voted against it. When any political party in power enacts legislation that will impact citizens’ fundamental right to vote, it is the role of the courts to examine that legislation carefully, including the facts and circumstances leading to its passage, and not to be blind to the possibility that partisan politics may have played a role, not to review it as the lower courts did here, under the least exacting scrutiny. This Sunday’s New York Times says ours is the case “that will most test the court’s ability to rise above partisanship”.
The issue is our case is not whether Indiana may constitutionally require voters to identify themselves at the polls. Everyone agrees it may, and should. The issue here is whether Indiana may severely limit the type of ID and then disenfranchise those who don’t have that particular form of ID, without any first presenting at least some evidence that the law is necessary to address a real rather than an imagined problem.
I’ll keep you all posted as we move down the road to oral arguments in January.
William R Groth's blog | login or register to post comments
As I said in response to the post (from Bil, not Bill) that prompted Lalita's question, Bill Groth is the sort of person who restores my hope that the system might work.
Still, there's a reason the New York Times said "be careful what you wish for" about this case. Right now, few states have ID laws as strict as Indiana's. If Bill's arguments lose, and the Indiana law is upheld, there will likely be a proliferation of new restrictions.
But you are right, we should all be thankful when front page news is about serious issues being debated by decent, fair-minded people like Bill G.
...that Bill Groth is handling this case. While I often worry and wonder about how much partisanship plays into cases like this, I know Bill personally and I realize this isn't about one party or the other so much as it is standing up for the little guy. I feel very confident putting this in Bill's hands since I know he's thought about this long and hard.
OK. So Upon Further Review believes the data about voter fraud--ACORN or candidates encouraging illegal immigrants to vote--IS compelling enough to merit support for this law (and presumably that the data about voters being disenfranchised is not compelling enough to oppose it).
And here, I just don't know. I'm guessing both sides have anecdotes and neither side has statistical evidence, which would be VERY hard to obtain.
So I understand why you would think that, on balance, it does more good than harm. And it may. But absent good evidence, that same logic could be used to introduce many restrictions of different sorts and I find that worrisome.
Mr. Farnsley, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I concur in whole or in part with some of your points; however, I'll have to respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
You say "fewer laws are better," and in general, I wouldn't argue with that. (For instance, I've never understood why most so-called "hate crimes laws" are necessary -- if it's already illegal to punch ANYONE in the face, why do we need a law making it illegal to punch a minority or a gay person in the face?)
But in the case of the voter ID law, I think the individual liberties of most Hoosiers could be more adversely affected if the law were overturned.
A free election is the best guarantee of our freedoms, and the last thing we need is one political party or the other trying to control our state and our lives. We're less free, individually and collectively, if machine politics or voter fraud begins superseding or diluting the vote of the common man.
Therefore, when I see fringe groups like ACORN perpetrating voter fraud, and candidates telling illegal immigrants that it's ok for them to vote, I get uneasy about the integrity of Indiana elections, and thus my individual freedom.
So, as with checking IDs at the front door of your neighborhood tavern, checking voter IDs at Indiana's polls does more good than harm IMHO, even if it's not a perfect system.
Now, if someone can demonstrate to me that a significant number of legal voters aren't being allowed to vote, I'll reconsider my stance. But at the moment they seem to exist more in theory than in reality.
And remember, even if a legal voter is wrongly turned away at the polls, he can still cast a provisional vote and prove within two weeks that he is, in fact, a legal voter.
Good lord, a real, rational argument with two well-argued opposing views.
It appears to me that we lack the data to make this a data-driven argument. Supporters of Voter ID can't show evidence that anyone has voted fraudulently without ID and opponents--like Bill G--can't show conclusively that voters have been disenfranchised by the requirement. It seems likely both that some have voted fraudulently and that some have been disenfranchised, but we don't really know how many.
In such a situation, supporters of the new law would prefer to err on the side of caution. I'd rather err on the side of individual liberty and the right to vote.
This is a new law adding a new restriction on the rights of citizenship. I say fewer laws are better and it is ALWAYS incumbent on those who would ADD requirements to prove that they are needed and that their benefits outweigh their costs. Bill shouldn't have to prove the new law is harmful, supporters of the law should have to prove it is beneficial. They can't.
If it's a choice between freedom or safety and the data is unpersuasive, choose freedom. I don't need a reason to be free, but you need a damned good one to restrict my freedom.
Ms. Kennedy espouses the virtues of "spell(ing) out the specifics." But I don't see that Mr. Groth has provided enough specifics yet to sufficiently answer the question of "What's the big deal about requiring voters to show ID?"
To wit:
1. Mr. Groth writes: "Indiana conceded that there is absolutely no evidence that any voter in its history has ever been charged with impersonating another voter to cast a fraudulent ballot."
As Varangianguard so deftly pointed out, a closer look at this seemingly sweeping statement reveals that it refers to only one type of voter fraud, not every type.
Moreover, when opponents of the voter ID law took their case to federal court, Judge Sarah Evans Barker noted that "Plaintiffs ... have not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its the requirements."
If you can't even produce one person who's been adversely affected by this law, why should anyone take your apparently theoretical objections seriously?
2. Mr. Groth writes: "(T)here are many thousands of people in Indiana, and millions more in the larger society around us, who because they are poor, elderly, disabled or homeless do not own a car or perhaps have stopped driving because of the infirmities of age."
Right, but so what? This vague, largely emotional declaration provides no link between the lack of car ownership and the inability to easily obtain a valid ID.
I get the point that not everybody has a driver's license, but what percentage of Hoosiers without driver's licenses lack any other form of valid identification ... and how many of them have no ability to easily obtain it? Those are the more relevant numbers, and you still haven't supplied them.
3. Mr. Groth writes: "For those citizens, the requirement to produce a government-issued ID with an expiration date involves considerable economic and logistical burdens."
Again, this is vague theory, not specifics. What exactly are these "considerable" burdens that prevent so many people from managing to procure, just once, a valid state-accepted ID? Are we talking about the price of a single bus fare or cab fare? Do the people in question genuinely not have any other ID of any kind in their possession? If not, do they have no friends, no family, no caretakers and no one else in their lives who could help them obtain an ID?
If none of these options works, I have no objection to the state going out of its way to accommodate such people (maybe with a mobile service). But let's get specific: How many people are we talking about?
4. Mr. Groth writes: "The last census showed that 7.6% of Indiana households did not own an automobile."
The 7.6% isn't the relevant figure. It doesn't matter how many Indiana households don't own an automobile -- the question is, how many legal voters in these households have no ID ... and no feasible way of getting one? You can't assume that just because they have no car, they likewise have no ID (and, more to the point, no possible way of easily getting one).
5. Mr. Groth writes: "Many of those persons rely on public transportation and the generosity of friends and neighbors for mobility."
You just undercut your own argument. If many of these persons have other means of mobility besides driving their own vehicles, why can't they use the same public transportation or friends and neighbors to help them obtain an ID the next time they're out and about? Can't they combine this stop with their usual errands?
6. Mr. Groth writes: "Some would say, but elections are seldom decided by a small number of votes."
Classic straw man argument. I don't hear proponents of the voter ID law making this claim. To the contrary, those who favor the law seem more concerned that even a small number of illegally cast votes could sway an election.
7. Mr. Groth writes: "When the Indiana legislature passed the 2005 law, all Republicans voted for it, and all Democrats, including every African-American legislator in both the House and Senate, voted against it. When any political party in power enacts legislation that will impact citizens' fundamental right to vote, it is the role of the courts to examine that legislation carefully ... and not to be blind to the possibility that partisan politics may have played a role."
Well, as most of us know, partisan politics plays a role in a great many bills. But so what?
The mere fact that every member of a particular party or voting bloc opposes a bill isn't proof of the bill's merits, or lack thereof. The key is to prove that the Democrats' unanimous negative vote stemmed from legitimate, verifiable objections to the ID law. After all, the unanimous vote could also be explained by the Democrats wrongfully opposing or simply misunderstanding the bill.
Varangianguard said it well: "(T)he statistical probability that there has never been significant voter fraud in Indiana some time in the present or the past is astronomical."
And look at what's happened in other states.
We've already seen members of the activist group ACORN perpetrating voter fraud by registering underage voters, dead voters and voters with names such as Mary Poppins and Dick Tracy.
We've already heard a tape of Democrat Congressional candidate Francine Busby of California telling an illegal immigrant, "You don't need papers for voting. You don't need to be a registered voter to help."
Yet we seriously believe that none of this could possibly occur in Indiana? Or are some of us more afraid that it won't?
Well, I would edit it, if I could.
Note. Change salutation to Bill Groth in previous message.
varangianguard,
I noticed that you addressed your comment to me so it brought me back to the site for a look-see. Apparently in my hurry to post this for Bill Groth this morning, I accidently left my name on the post. It's not my entry - it's his.
I just wanted to clear that up. I apologize for any confusion.
Bil,
I think that perhaps you are being a little disingenuous with your argument here. Detractors of this law repeatedly rely upon the lack of historical evidence about a single potential type of voter fraud, no doubt because it apparently bolsters their own argument. That single argument being when one individual claims to be another individual when attempting to vote. Any other potential methodolgy for potential voter fraud is conveniently ignored. I can think of two, just off the top of my head. One being the creation of multiple fictional identities for the purpose of voting, and two, simply lying about one's place of primary residence, and spending one's day jumping about from precinct to precinct. I truly that that there are sufficient checks to prevent either one from a determined fraudulent voter.
Second, what does that quote from the Supreme Court have to do with anything here? I don't believe that this law would prevent any individual from voting for the candidate of their choice. It simply requires that they provide some proof of who they say they are before doing so. Irrelevant argumentation.
Third, you argue that this law places an unreasonable economic and logistical burden upon certain segments of the population. This is the one point that I would agree needs some review. In my view though, I would prefer to address this with ameliorating the problems of travel to a BMV branch, rather than to throw out the baby with the bathwater. A governor could instruct the BMV to take their ID show on the road, and provisions could be made for any economic burdens incurred. There are already standards in place to allow for identification without birth certificate, so as long as those standards were well publicized, there should be little room for arguing this as a logistical burden.
Fourth, the argument of partisan politics. This is a hardly a new feature in the United States, much less in Indiana. Just look at the current Congressional districting if you don't believe me. Claiming that now, out of the blue, partisan politics has reared its ugly head for this particular law is not very compelling as an argument for judicial intervention. In this particular case, I don't mind that there will be a judicial review. But, I'm afraid that one side or the other will be endlessly complaining when the decision is handed down. I don't believe that this law "will impact citizens' fundamental right to vote". I think that the argument should instead focus on the "reasonableness" of the I.D. requirements. As I stated above, I don't believe to be a burden, and if there is some burden, it can be relieved without erasing the I.D. requirement. Effectively, I don't believe that a holder of a libray card or Blockbuster card should be able to waltz in, flash some card and proceed to vote.
Finally, to me, the statistical probability that there has never been significant voter fraud in Indiana some time in the present or the past is astonomical. If you seriously believe that somehow Indiana has been exempt from behavior exhibited in cities all across the US since the early 19th century, then perhaps you'd better hope that your opposing counsel is as well versed in history as you. The real chance that future fraud might be perpetrated ought to be justification enough for the provisions of this law to stand. As you say, partisan politics has become more and more intertwined with the electoral process. With that comes an accompanying increase in the potential payoff for perpetrating fraud, as the stakes for the winners rise. For now, and for the future, I believe that this I.D. law is a good thing for Indiana.
This case may be the most misunderstood challenge I've seen. It does sound eminently reasonable to ask people for ID--and most people who are unfamiliar with the particulars of this law simply shrug and say "what's the big deal"?
You really have to spell out the specifics before people "get it."
Sheila Kennedy
12 min 47 sec ago
3 hours 41 min ago
1 day 3 hours ago
1 day 15 hours ago
1 day 15 hours ago
1 day 15 hours ago
1 day 15 hours ago
1 day 16 hours ago
1 day 16 hours ago
1 day 16 hours ago