American Values Alliance | Practical voice for progressive valuesAmerican Values Alliance | Practical voice for progressive valuesTell me again how the Voter ID law--now blessed by our pro-authoritarian Supreme Court--will only hurt people intent on committing voter fraud?
According to the AP:
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.
Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.
The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They weren't 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, Sister 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."
Sheila Suess Kennedy's blog | login or register to post comments
Something we can agree on here, Rebecca. I agree that Todd Rokita got what he wanted out of this law.
What can give you some hope is that the SCOTUS left the door open on this one. As I mentioned previously, I don't believe this to be one of the best crafted laws Indiana ever churned out. And, if your fears begin to manifest themselves into practice, this law will be open for another (hopefully better crafted) challenge.
The legal opponents of this law dropped the ball and you should be disappointed in their lame efforts before the courts. I believe the only reason this case made it as far as it did was that the law itself was of great interest in fixing or denying precedence, and that the issue was (is) so politically charged. On its merits alone, either case should have been tossed out of court with a stern scolding and a rap on the knuckles.
And you see? I have yet to hear from the ACLU (or anyone else) saying that they have found a way to fund me in assisting disadvantaged voters. All talk, no action (unless it's using billable attorney hours).
I think this law is never going to have a negative effect on healthy middle-class and wealthy voters, all of whom will either have the requisite ID or have the means to easily obtain it.
When a state passes a law that makes it difficult for some of its citizens to vote, it has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. It has, for all practical purposes, told poor and/or elderly and/or disabled people that it doesn’t really care whether they get to vote. That ain’t right. And thank you Jesus for folks like Bill Groth who went to bat for them.
That said, I absolutely agree that it should be up to the state to now ensure that every one of its registered voters has the required ID. It would be, as you say, a PR bonanza. But I suspect our secretary of state has gotten exactly the PR he wanted from this, don’t you?
The Constitution doesn't seem to explicitly guarantee the right to vote, as it does some other "rights". I think that means that the qualification is then left to the states, as long as explicit Constitutional guarantees aren't compromised (like denying the privilege to vote due to race or gender).
For whatever else it is, or isn't, the Indiana Voter I.D. law doesn't differentiate a voting threshold based on any such illegal "tests". In this, the law affords equal protection, if perhaps not opportunity for all Indiana residents. There are exemptions, and for an Indiana resident with the slightest bit of motivation, most of the potential roadblocks are surmountable in a fairly straightforward fashion (notice I didn't say necessarily "easy").
I only wish that I could prove my point by finding some funding and assisting the few Indiana residents who truly do have difficulty obtaining a primary identity document as required by the law. It really wouldn't hurt for the State to make an effort to assist Indiana residents in that regards, either. For anybody, it would be a PR bonanza, in my opinion. Unfortunately, most people would rather spend their money on weak legal challenges, than in really attempting to ameliorate potential roadblocks for voters. I consider that elitist and counter-productive (oh, and whiny).
For every person who has been crowing "See! Disenfranchised voters!" since Tuesday, when the story of the nuns appeared,
I say why don't you look at the numbers in Marion and Lake Counties and drag out the thousands you expected to be disenfranchised there? Not happening. The Indiana Voter I.D. law just isn't unreasonable. What's unreasonable? Asking a voter to drop their drawers at the precinct and prove their gender would be unreasonable. But, I just cannot equate voter I.D. with poll taxes and literacy tests.
What a great discussion! Mind if I chime in, here?
As a Black woman whose family experienced poll taxes and other voter tests, I have a slightly different take on voter ID or other restrictions. First, here's the salient part of the 14th Amendment:
Amendment 14
(July 28, 1868)Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
To my tiny little mind, if one is a citizen of legal age to vote, that's it. However, it's proving one's citizenship (or even age) that can be problemmatic. When I was in Benefits and Comp, I was asked to go to Chicago to be part of a plant closure team (not my favorite thing). The division had, at one time been over 6,000 people strong--many of whom where long-time employees who were born in the South. These men and women didn't have proof of date of birth and we used their family Bibles, baptismal records or a host of other documents to prove age and eligibility for a severance package that included retirement benefits (calculated based on years of service and age). We could to it there, so what gives with proof of voter eligibility, particularly when challenged at the poll?
Now, understanding that we have had a history of denying people the right to vote (regardless of whether they ever could provide the proof needed, pay the poll tax or pass the ridiculous test--and my great grandma said they were some stupid, childish tests, to be sure), I'm still not convinced that proving one's particulars needs to be that much of a problem: I have to show ID to get into a bar (um, though not so much anymore), fly or use my debit card.
Let's see what you all think of that.
________
Lalita L. Amos, CRC
http://www.totalteamsolutions.com
http://totalteam.blogspot.com
The thing is, I don't really like the Indiana law as it's written either. It's full of loopholes (see absentee voting allowances), for one thing. I also agree that "pandering" probably best describes Secretary Rokita's efforts in this arena. Still, pandering and politics are all too often inseparable when it comes laws like this.
Too bad that the two cases that combined into what the SCOTUS just reviewed were so awfully weak. Truly, I would have expected a little better out of the ACLU. Me, I would have laughed their pathetic argumentation out of my courtroom, if I were a judge. Frankly, I would have expected more from 3rd year law students working under a time deadline.
Voter fraud has been a problem at least since the 1830's. Its forms and methodologies have morphed over the years, but the stakes are very high in winning elections, and some people are in to win. They always have been. I would posit that the stakes for winning have never been higher, making voter fraud attempts all the more attractive and lucrative. Think of the very important issues that Americans face from the local to the national level these days. People who "win" elections are the ones who get to heavily influence the direction taken on these issues (like proposing SCOTUS justices), and for some, losing may not seem to be a viable option.
I worry more about the still legal loopholes that might allow large-scale voter fraud to continue than whether some balky old ladies get to mark a ballot or not. I also think that sweating the little stuff might distract enough people to miss the big stuff.
I am unfamiliar with your story about public officials in Vigo county, not having lived in Indiana all my life, so I’ll take your word for it. But here’s the deal: if public officials holding power are determined to commit voter fraud, then arguably, this new law (or any other law) will not stop them. The Vigo county officials, after all, apparently tried to circumvent existing voter laws.
You may be comfortable with as many as 11,000 Indiana citizens being disenfranchised by Rokita’s political pandering; I think it is shameful that even one person was prevented from exercising this most fundamental right just so he could cater to the more paranoid members of his party.
While it is very difficult to prosecute impersonation fraud, in times past, it doesn't seem to have been impossible.
In fact, greediness in attempting to illegally "adjust" a Congressional election eventually landed 75+ people in Vigo County in Federal court, where plea bargains and convictions sent no less than the Mayor of Terre Haute, his Police Chief, an assistant Police Chief, the County Sheriff, two judges, and a long list of accomplices to Federal prison after local efforts to bring them to justice were stymied (guess why?). The testimony concerning impersonation fraud read just like something out of a Tammany Hall electioneering handbook.
Truly, had the Mayor not been quite so eager to expand his influence beyond the county line, he would have gotten away with it indefinitely (look at his list of "friends").
Partisan politicos regularly seem hesitant to dredge up charges of voter fraud. Perhaps they fear that what comes around, goes around (a lesson that certain Democrats failed to learn during Watergate). In any event, it is disengenuous (at the least) to continue to propagate the mistake belief that impersonation fraud has never existed in Indiana. The ACLU's best and brightest just don't seem to be quite the researchers that they should be.
As to what I would consider "significant"? Well, it would have to be at least one percent of the registered voters in Indiana who actually vote. I think I read that 1.1 million people voted on May 6th, so that would mean 11,000.
For the Supreme Court test, if I remember correctly, the ACLU came in "a few" below that threshold.
Statistically, there was zero, that’s “0,” evidence of voter fraud in Indiana prior to the new I.D. law, if you want to talk about insignificant blips on the radar. I do have sympathy for the 12 nuns. They were essentially silenced by a ludicrous law for the sake of Rokita’s political posturing, and I highly doubt they were the only citizens in yesterday’s election who were so disenfranchised. How many “blips” would it take for you to consider the law an undue burden, varangianguard? I think it’s pretty easy to say they were insignificant when you weren’t one of them.
After a quick reveiw of the Constitution. The 14th., 15th., 19th., 24th.& 26th. admendments to the Bill of Rights. Address our right to VOTE. Every time some lawmaker comes up with another un-nessary requirement to vote. It's frequently for political reasons. And another little chip at our Rights. I for one have seen all the "chipping" that I ever care to see in these last 7 1/2 years.
They "elected" not to play.
How ironic that a group of nuns who likely spent 40 years rapping the knuckles of little parochial school kids, finally had someone tell THEM no.
I think that the current law would have allowed the nuns to obtain I.D. without going further than the lobby of the convent. But, they chose not to even go to that trouble. They "chose". That's the key here.
Statistically, twelve Indiana citizens out of the total number who did vote yesterday isn't even a blip on the "significance" radar. So sorry if my sympathy meter doesn't register a blip here either.
And, notice that large numbers of Lake and Marion County voters somehow managed to get valid I.D. and vote. All contrary to the dire predictions of the losing side of the voter I.D. lawsuit.
3 hours 12 min ago
4 hours 16 min ago
5 hours 52 min ago
9 hours 6 min ago
1 day 2 hours ago
1 day 21 hours ago
1 day 21 hours ago
1 day 21 hours ago
1 day 21 hours ago
1 day 22 hours ago