The number of voters who must show identification at polling places is growing yearly, despite escalating, bitterly partisan disputes over necessity and fairness of the requirement.
Three new voter ID laws, passed in Georgia, Indiana and Arizona, could test the limits of voter verification laws and perhaps lead to a case before the Supreme Court.
Bills passed in the Georgia and Indiana legislatures this year will require voters to show only government-issued photographic ID. In Arizona, voters approved a proposition requiring voter ID. The law also stated that those lacking necessary verification could not be issued provisional ballots, the national safeguard enacted as part of the 2002 Help America Vote Act.
Voter ID opponents were quick to respond.
In Georgia, the ACLU has filed suit and the state's League of Women Voters has published letters to the editor warning of the potential for disenfranchisement. Indiana's Civil Liberties Union sued in that state as well, charging that the new requirement "puts a substantial and unnecessary burden of time and cost for some potential voters and thus clearly violates the federal Voting Rights Act."
The U.S. Department of Justice has disagreed with the ICLU's pronouncement, pre-clearing the similar voter-ID rules in Georgia, which under the Voting Rights Act must have approval for any changes in election administration. Indiana is not required to secure preclearance. In Arizona, the DOJ wavered on the no-ID, no-vote requirement, first accepting the plan, and subsequently informing the state that voters without ID had to be issued provisional ballots. The state, the DOJ letter said, could then reject any provisional ballot cast by a voter without ID.
One expert said the question of photoID will likely go to the nation's highest court.
"It might wind up in the Supreme Court and the evidence will show that it definitely has discriminatory impact," said Tova Wang, democracy fellow at the New York-based Century Foundation. "I think that there has been a perception created - not an accurate one - that somehow requiring ID will prevent some kind of fraud that's going on. Instinctively, it seems right until you look at the situation. There's very little evidence that the type of fraud that does occur can be addressed by ID requirements. At the same time, you're committing a different type of fraud by disenfranchising some people by requiring ID."
Unlike other election administration issues, the battle lines on voter ID were drawn well before the 2000 presidential race. Democrats steadfastly oppose legislation to require ID, citing a disproportionately negative impact on the poor, the elderly and minority voters. Republicans have spearheaded voter ID expansion in statehouses around the country, insisting such policies help curb fraud and ensure only valid votes are counted.
According to information gathered by electionline.org, in 2002, 11 states required voters to show some form of verification before casting ballots. Now, 22 states require voters to show ID, while two more require any first-time voter to show ID.
Indiana secretary of State Todd Rokita (R), who urged the passage of his state's voter ID law, said the new law in his state is essential to safeguarding the vote. He said he had heard stories of rampant fraud in some parts of the state, the new law would finally do something to address it while protecting those who would be affected by the cost of an ID.
"We were the first to offer all of our residents a free state-issued photo ID card from the bureau of motor vehicles," he said. "The voter ID law goes to great lengths to ensure every Hoosier's vote counts - once."
Rokita said the law exempts the elderly who live and vote in nursing homes and those with religious objections to being photographed. Indiana also allows those lacking ID to cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted up to 13 days after an election, if the voter shows up at a clerk's office and presents a photo identification.
Those exceptions have done little to quell resistance.
While the skirmishes continue, one election expert presented a potential solution. Ohio State University law professor Edward B. Foley, in a recent online commentary, suggested a system by which registrants would present ID when they registered and then had their image captured digitally. At the polls, a computer would show a picture of the voter, allowing in essence a "photo ID" without the identification card.
"The purpose of a photo ID requirement - beyond the traditional requirement of providing one's name, address, and signature - is to compare the likeness of the person seeking to vote with the photograph that is linked to the name and address of the registered voter (whom the flesh-and-blood person purports to be)," Foley wrote.
[Author Affiliation]
Dan Seligson is editor of electionline.org, a non-partisan Web site that covers voting procedures.
No comments:
Post a Comment