Can A Photo ID Be Required To Vote?

Washington Post: Supreme Court Will Soon Weigh In On A Very Partisan Battle

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Robert Barnes.

---

The Supreme Court will open the new year with its most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore decided the 2000 presidential election, and its decision could force a major reinterpretation of the rules of the 2008 contest.

The case presents what seems to be a straightforward and even unremarkable question: Does a state requirement that voters show a specific kind of photo identification before casting a ballot violate the Constitution?

The answer so far has depended greatly on whether you are a Democratic or Republican politician -- or even, some believe, judge.

"It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo ID (try flying, or even entering a tall building such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one)," Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in deciding that Indiana's strictest-in-the-nation law is not burdensome enough to violate constitutional protections.

His colleague on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, Bill Clinton appointee Terence T. Evans, was equally frank in dissent. "Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic," Evans wrote.

For justices still hearing from the public about their role in the 2000 election -- "It's water over the deck; get over it," Justice Antonin Scalia impatiently told a questioner at a college forum this year -- the partisan implications of the issue are hard to miss.

The case has pitted Democrats against Republicans, conservative legal foundations against liberal ones, civil rights organizations against the Bush administration.

"Voter ID laws have become the most politicized" of governments' efforts to try to limit fraud and voting irregularities, said Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who filed a brief supporting the law's challengers. "It's in the nation's best interest for the court to resolve it."

Hasen is one of those who point out that the partisan division on voter ID laws often extends to the judiciary. Not only did the 7th Circuit's 2 to 1 vote to uphold Indiana's law break down along the lines of which party nominated the judges; so, with one exception, did the full court's decision not to reconsider the ruling. Michigan's Supreme Court justices -- who are elected in partisan races -- upheld that state's voter ID law, with the five Republicans voting to support it and the two Democrats opposing it.

Hasen does not believe that the decisions reflect a desire to aid one political party over another, but rather a philosophical divide on the question of whether protecting the integrity of the voting process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many eligible voters as possible take part in the process.

"People come in with a worldview, and judges are no different," Hasen said.

The Indiana case seems to offer a perfect example. The state's Republican-led legislature passed the law in 2005 requiring voters to have ID, even though the state had never prosecuted a case of voter impersonation.

Democrats there challenged the requirement as unconstitutional, although they have not produced a person who wanted to vote but was unable to do so because of the law.

What is undisputed is that the number of states with such laws is growing. The Supreme Court made it clear in a 1992 case involving write-in candidates in Hawaii that states have leeway in regulating the voting process. Subjecting every restriction to constitutional "strict scrutiny" standards would conflict with the states' ability to run efficient elections, the court said.

And in 2006, in a relatively short and unsigned opinion issued just weeks before the election, the court agreed that a voter-approved initiative in Arizona that required voters to show proof of citizenship could go into effect.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita (R) said voter fraud was something he was asked about "almost daily" by constituents. "At the Kiwanis Club, the chamber of commerce groups, people would say, 'Why aren't you asking who I am when I vote?' " Rokita said.

The state law he and the legislature came up with requires voters to show a government-issued photo ID that has an expiration date, such as a driver's license or a passport. Nondrivers can receive an identification card from the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.

Voters without ID may cast provisional ballots, but then must appear before their county clerk or board of elections within 10 days. There, they must show a photo ID or at least two other forms of identification, such as a certified birth certificate or naturalization papers.

Most other states that call for photo IDs are less strict, or make it easier to cast provisional ballots. Virginia, for instance, allows voters to sign sworn statements attesting to their identity. Maryland and the District of Columbia do not require voters to show a photo ID, except for first-time voters who registered by mail.

"Virtually everything you do, you have to show a photo ID," Rokita said in an interview, and the "sacred civic transaction" of voting should be no different.

The lower courts have agreed with Indiana. Posner's majority opinion said that the "benefits of voting to the individual voter are elusive" because major elections "are never decided by just one vote."

He said there is a deferential scale the court should follow in evaluating voting requirements. "The fewer people harmed by a law, the less total harm there is to balance against whatever benefits the law might confer," he wrote.

But Evans said that since the state had presented no evidence of voter fraud by impersonators, the law was not solving any problem. "Is it wise to use a sledgehammer to hit either a real or imaginary fly on a glass coffee table?" Evans wrote. "I think not."

Even Posner alluded to the partisan nature of the debate. "No doubt most people who don't have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates," he wrote.

Both sides cite studies that they believe show that the law has not resulted in lower turnouts for minorities and others or, alternately, show that minorities are most likely to be affected. There are numerous media accounts and other reports of fraudulent voting, as well as a corresponding study from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University law school titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud," which attempts to knock down many of them.

Brennan Center Executive Director Michael Waldman, a vigorous opponent of voter ID laws, said he fears that the partisan nature of the debate obscures "the actual fact that there are millions of Americans who don't have the kind of ID" that the Indiana law requires.

"We as a country should be finding ways to make it easier for people to vote," Waldman said.

He added that voter impersonation is the least common kind of voter fraud and that Indiana's ID law does nothing to combat what has been proven to have illegally influenced an Indiana election -- absentee balloting fraud.

Rokita responded that that is not a case for inaction: "Why should we wait until we become victims of identity theft, which is what this is?"

The combined cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, will be argued Jan. 9.

[xlib]

YES~~ As for Bush vs Gore, how about the military vote that Gore didn''t want counted.

[red1530]

I don''t get why people are opposed to having to show ID when you vote to prevent fraud if it is fairly easy to get the IDs.

[fredsmith193]

What does having an ID have to do with voter discrimination? I need an ID to do virtually everything: get a bank account, rent a movie, drive a car. Voting is much more important than all of the following an thus people should be required to have an ID to vote. Down here in NC there were DEAD people voting in the last election. By not requiring people to prove who they are allow people to abuse the system. That is wrong.

[king16x]

Several states issue driver licenses to any resident who passes the driving test, regardless of his citizenship. We should either change the requirements for issuing driver licenses, or else issue some form of national photo ID card that proves citizenship.

[michellem99-2009]

I vote by mail. If I go to the poll I do have to show ID plus as a blind voter the person has to help me fill out the ballot..I vote..I perfer the mail in. Seattle is mail in.

[undermyboot]

If voter ID was really about stopping voter fraud, I''d be for it. But any honest person looking at this will admit it is about keeping certain people from voting- nothing more. This is about stealing elections by rigging the system to keep "the undesirables" (citizens) from exercising their Constitutional rights. Period.

[sgtrds]

It''s a new version of a poll tax and it''s only goal is to disenfrancise as many poor voters as possible. Voters that are more likely to vote democrat. This is an attempt to try to make sure that only the people who can afford to vote are allowed to vote. It''s an abomination.

[sgtrds]

I see some people here do not understand the issue completely. The problem is not as much with an ID. The problem is that they will required to PAY to get the required ID.

[keithle1]

So what if they have to pay for the photo ID? Just don''t buy any lottery tickets, alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, crack, etc, for a day or two & get yourself a photo ID. Don''t say you can''t afford it.

[tomtomasters]

I agree that photo ID is required and that taxpayers pay for the ID. If lost the individual pays for a new one. Mail in ballots will require that they have a photo ID to compare signatures to validate they indeed registered. Poor people will be helped to get their ID''s and handicapped will be helped to vote. Let''s work together for validity.

[michellem99-2009]

I have alway had/have pay for my state ID card..I have never gotten it free. Sgt

[cyberus-2009]

Simple solution .. require as a prerequisite of a voter ID law that State IDs must be provided for a minimal processing fee to all AND for free to anyone showing need, items such as but not limited to medicare/medicaid card, food stamp card and so on could be easy proof of low income. Proof of identity would still be require to get an ID but thats pretty much required for everything now anyways.

[incog-nito]

As a photo ID, I strongly dislike being told what to do, let alone being required to vote.

[macusweil]

"The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens%u2019 personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver%u2019s licenses embedded with %u201Cstandard identifier%u201D data %u2014 a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we%u2019re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005. " ~Congressman Ron Paul

I''m voting for Ron Paul in the Feb 5th NY State GOP primary.

[demwatcher]

Geez dudes, I thought that this would be a no-brainer.

If you are going to vote in this country there must be a way to positively verify that you are qualified (as a citizen and resident) to actually vote.

What is the problem?

You need proof that you are legally authorized to drive a car (license).

[demwatcher]

In Florida in 2000, Vice President Al Gore never took the lead. He trailed on election night. He was still behind after the mandatory statewide recount. He was behind after overseas ballots were added, and he still trailed after the hand recounts of selected heavily Democratic counties were added to the vote totals. And as all the studies undertaken in 2001 by the major newspapers and television networks showed, had the entire statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court not been halted by the US Supreme Court, Gore still would have finished behind Bush in Florida in the end.

If we track eligible voter more carefully, stuff like the DNC and that fugger Gore tried in 2000 would be less likely.

[infidel_us]

It should be. That way, democrats won''t get to vote 42 times.....in place of the dead. That''s how it is in GA and it has cut down on election fraud. Who in their right mind could be against it (democrats excluded b/c we already know they are mot right in the head)?

[libsluvsuvs]

everybody..please take note who is "against'' this new requirement..a requirement that would make it HARDER TO CHEAT...and it worries the liberals.

[sgtrds]

And you have been proven wrong again. FREE IDs are required to be issued under this law.

http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/ho
w.html

How do I get an ID?
If you do not possess an ID that is acceptable for voting purposes, PL 109-2005 requires the BMV to issue an Indiana State ID Card free of charge.

Posted by TheGateway1 at 08:06 PM : Dec 25, 2007


Ahh but this is not a case where the ruling only concerns the Indiana law, even though that''s the case in front of them. The court is NOT going to rule on the specifics of if a state can or can not charge for a v0ter ID, but rather only if they can constitutionally require one in the first place. The ruling will have zero effect on the ability to charge for a voter ID (and many states are already eager to do so) as that is not the issue before this court. If the court rules that it is constitutional for a state to require a voter ID, it will not be addressing if it can charge for one.

[zootallures2]

How about being required to know the branches of government, that the u.s. is a Republic, not a Democracy, where it is on a map, where your state is on a map, know what all the symbols and colors of the nation really mean...

[zootallures2]

And it is ironic that the voters need to be so checked for honesty, while the media and government is completely evil and corrupt.

[zootallures2]

The candidates are rigged, the voting machines are rigged and you believe this ID-ing tripe?

[zootallures2]

The whole system is a fraud, but voters need to be ID-ed? Is this some sort of hollywood show for other counties to believe your idiotic lies?

[zootallures2]

Free IDs? No such thing. It''s your taxes that pay. Guess it would be good to own the company that makes these new voter ID cards, huh?

[zootallures2]

zootallures2,

Fact, man, bring on the facts. Hard, incontrovertable facts.

Posted by TheGateway1 at 10:27 PM : Dec 25, 2007


But I guess it''s the American "Dream"... not American Facts.

[sgtrds]

The measore of a law is not how many will benefit when applied properly, but how many could suffer if not.

The measure is a good one if phased in over the next 100 years.

Regards,

Posted by Nancy_Naive at 10:17 PM : Dec 25, 2007

Wonderful and 100% correct. The only issue the court has agreed to consider is if it is constitutional for the states to require photo IDs and it is not even going to consider how such an ID would be created, if a current form of ID is acceptable or if a state can charge for such an ID. A ruling that narrow leaves this issue open to wide abuse at the state level. It would allow any state to create a special voter ID card that must be purchased in order to vote such as was proposed in Georgia. Certainly those new state laws and requirements could and will be constitutionally challenged, but it could take many years for those issues to reach the Supreme Court for resolution, if the court agrees to hear them at all. In the meantime many states will use this ruling to systematically deny voting rights to the predominately minority poor. After all, the poor rarely vote republican, so why should this court care?

[zootallures2]

Free IDs? No such thing. It''''''''s your taxes that pay. Guess it would be good to own the company that makes these new voter ID cards, huh?
Posted by zootallures2 at 10:25 PM : Dec 25, 2007"

Under your logic, I guess you''''d approve stopping welfare and food stamps as well, seeing as how they are paid for from our taxes.

Posted by TheGateway1 at 10:30 PM : Dec 25, 2007


Well, that was the original plan of that and foreign aid. To force you to buy things for others so companies have a sure sales. I constantly see perfectly healthy people on welfare. And all these bums and homeless people. Why do they put up tents in the city????? Why not in the woods? You can grow and hunt food out there. Lazy parsites! What do you think the settlers did when thy came here? Begged the Indians?

[zootallures2]

TheGateway1, and I don''t mean that to blame the homeless or the poor. The governments for ages wants to keep them dependant to exploit them. That would a tragity for the government if they just went off and started their own community in the woods. The FBI would come and shoot them all...LOL!

[burneb]

Although a lifelong Dem, I think it reasonable to require a person to show at least one form of credible ID for an important function, such as VOTING.

The issue of voter fraud is probably over-hyped by Republicans for this issue, but it is still important to bolster public confidence in voting. Even more importantly, much fraud and crime is based on non-ID or false-ID and as a society we need to take this more seriously. For many reasons, it is dangerous for all of us when people take jobs, rent apartments, get licenses, etc. under false identities.

It may require extra effort for some people to get proper ID. Again, I think this problem has been over-hyped by those seeking to cover for illegal aliens. Surely a nation that can go to the Moon, field thousands of nuclear weapons, and invent Google, Ebay, Tivo, etc. can make it reasonably easy for all to identify themselves.

If you do NOT believe this argument, show me one legitimate American resident who has any business voting but who should not have and CAN NOT somehow get a valid ID.

[zootallures2]

This ID deversion is like the debt to China and the shrinking dollar. The dollar just shrinks when production costs exceed the interest on the debt. Yea, you got it. Your taxes are buying all your Chinese junk and when you go to the store you buy them again. The corporations could toss it all in the ocean and not lose a dime. Just wouldn''t get the double price. So actually Chinese products cost more than American made.

[barbaraf4]

Proposed voter ID is one of those laws that bothers only those who do not have the proper ID. If you have the ID, then be sure to take it with you to the polls; if you don''t have the ID but are qualified, then find out what you need to do to get it. If you aren''t qualified, then you don''t get to vote.

[zootallures2]

You are all so conditioned to believe and be dependant on the system. Humans don''t need money. You can go out in the woods and God provides housing, food, entertainment, scenery... you name it. Do you think more people would die that way as they do with all the murders and wars that the system needs to keep a few rich bozos in power while you worry if they will like you or not? God loves everyone.

[zootallures2]

Voter IDs.... what a joke. They sytem is a failure. You blew up your own towers and are bombing millions of innocent people. Sounds like a real winner to be proud of. The gates of heavan are open just waiting for you...LMAO!

[runningralph]

Only fraudulent people don''t want fraud prevention.

[zootallures2]

I love the stories where people survived days in the woods...LOL! No sh*t morons. People did it for millions of years, not days. If not we would hardly dominate the planet. But go get your voting ID for the rigged voting machines and corporate appointed candidates...LOL!

[zootallures2]

Only fraudulent people don''''t want fraud prevention.

Posted by runningralph at 11:10 PM : Dec 25, 2007

Thats, right! Reopen the 9/11 investigation with a real independant staff and scientific facts.

[perrycbs1]

The fly in the ointment, so to speak, regards stolen or lost wallets and other ID''s.

It happens, and it happens with on a small scale with some frequency. This is why you really do not need an ID to fly. Just announce that you have lost your ID (or that your wallet or purse was stolen) and you will be processed through.

There needs to be some form of allowing people to vote in the case of a lost ID.

[zootallures2]

I got a photo ID and I really don''t know anyone who doesn''t. What is the relevance of this krap? How about the fake candidates and rigged voting machines? The majority want either Ron Paul or Mike Gravel. Only international bankers, corporations, and sadistic losers want any of the other morons.

[uzzisanta]

Theres also the issue of the false sense of security. A photo ID is a guarantee of the right to vote? A guarantee of citizenship? Of who you are? No. Its not a security document. Its a license to drive. Or a credit card. Or a military identification card. Documents designed not to give counties the false sense of security that the people voting there are genuine. They were never intended for that.

I think they should look into issuing a voting card.

[uzzisanta]

Security is.. *big gore sigh*. Security is a thing that is quite specific in nature. The more specific, the more foolproof. "Do you have the right to vote?" Not "can you drive". Not "can you charge". Not "can you buy campus books at the student price". But "do you have the right to vote?"

Once you allow forms intended for other things to be the standards that define things they were never intended to do.. you get whats known in the security sector as a "false sense of security".

[jsilver2th]

Say I know a lot of the Republican srategy has been to develop a huge absentee ballot program. I guess this would require that people actually show up, in person, and have another person check the ID.

So as a Democrat I guess this would pretty much scuttle that program which would mean all of these people would have to get up off their behinds and drive to a polling place. I kind of like that.
It would really take care of all the people in nursing homes for example. It definately favors the young who would have the stamina to stand in line all day. Just don''t get new glasses, hair colors, botoxed or put on or take off a few pounds and it should be like getting through airport security- oh bad example since that does not work either.

Then there is people like tiddsanbeer who don''t like people that aren''t like them- Democrats who don''t really deserve to vote because they work for Republicans who obvisouly must be smarter. Too bad you live in a free country- you''d be better off in some totalitarin reich-

[jsilver2th]

roadking041:

Can you give me the name of one illegal alien that voted in the last election?

It''s YOUR President George W. Bush that sings the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish at his campaign rallys...

[jsilver2th]

Mitt Romney has a Spanish language section on his web site.

[jsilver2th]

You think all of the dowagers and millionares are gonna wait in line just to vote? Ha Ha. Everybody knows one vote doesn''t count. It''s the money and they buy and sell it.

[tbweb]

Tribe asked, "What''''s gone wrong with America?"

It would be easier to ask, what in the last 7 years has gone right with America?

We''re headed for a second civil war and bad Supreme Court decisions are always the bellwether of violent confrontations. Combined with a Bush Depression, there will be blood.

Regards,

Posted by Nancy_Naive at 07:23 PM : Dec 25, 2007,,,

Headed for a second civil war? Did the South ever stop fighting the first civil war? hmmm!

[jsilver2th]

Maybe there should be a lie detector test to see if you fudged on your income taxes last year before you can vote-

[jsilver2th]

And after 65 a senility test- definately.

[tbweb]

Actually the way it works is that your neighbors are usually the people manning Polling places and Voting machines since the Voting process is broken down by the District a Voter lives in. Technically speaking in a close knit community, all or most of the neighbors should know or be familiar with each other anyway! Thats why many Americans prefer the suburbs and rural communities because its easier and usually the case that neighbors share and know each other! ID should be required anyway if the people manning the Polling places don''t know you, there should never have been Voting in the first place if you are an unknown, ID should have always been required if you are an unknown, so I don''t see the big deal about ID. It looks like the change now is that ID will be required whether you are known or not!

[jsilver2th]

tbweb: You''re absolutely right of course people that live in cities are sub-human.

[jsilver2th]

Especially Dallas and St. Lake.