Supreme Court Okays Indiana’s Voter ID Law
The Supreme Court has upheld Indiana’s voter ID law:
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.
In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
The problem with that argument is that no evidence of widespread voter fraud in Indiana exists:
When Indiana passed a voter I.D. law, it was ostensibly to protect the integrity of the voting process. What better way to prevent voter fraud than to require those participating in an election to produce identification?
Was there any evidence of a voter-fraud scourge in Indiana? No. Would the law make it harder for “certain kinds” of voters (i.e., the elderly, minorities, and the poor) to participate? Yes. Did this look a whole lot like Republican lawmakers trying to discourage likely Democratic voters from taking part in elections? You betcha.
SCOTUS acknowledged both that there was no evidence of voter fraud in Indiana, and that the legislation was probably motivated by partisan considerations, but said those points were immaterial:
The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters. The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls “voter fraud,” and the Court’s ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part. The main opinion said states have a valid interest in preventing voting by those not entitled to do so, even if there is no specific proof of that kind of fraud in the state.
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.
Adam B. at Daily Kos writes, “The Great Disenfranchisement of 2008 has begun“:
… These laws are not neutral, are not innocent, but are an attempt by Republican legislators to prevent traditionally Democratic voters from casting their ballots. …
BooMan adds:
… If you have ever spent time in the inner city, you know that very few people have driver’s licenses or passports, and that it costs $60-$80 to go down to the Division of Motor Vehicles or Secretary of State and get a photo ID. Most young people either have no picture ID, or use a student ID for identification purposes.
Let me just give you a real life example. In 2004, when I was managing voter registration teams, almost no one I hired in North Philadelphia had a photo ID. Likewise, almost no one they went out and registered in their neighborhoods had a photo ID. Yet, we got tens of thousands of people registered to vote and then we got them to the polls. If I had faced a requirement that everyone of those voters provide an official piece of photo identification, almost none of them would have voted. Why? First of all, because they didn’t have $60-$80 to spend on acquiring the identification. Second of all, even if they did, they would have had to make a special trip to the DMV, which is another part of the city.
More commentary at Memeorandum.
