Home

SEARCH

Supreme Court Ruling on Indiana Voter ID Law the ‘Wrong Decision’

 Bookmark and Share

by James Parks, Apr 28, 2008

In a decision today that could disenfranchise millions of average Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, on a 6–3 vote, Indiana’s voter identification law, the most restrictive law of its kind in the country.

In his dissent, Justice David Souter echoed what critics of the law have said all along: 

Indiana’s voter ID law threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens, and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting.

After the 2000 election, Republicans in many states have pushed for voter ID laws, claiming voter fraud is rampant. But studies have shown the problem does not exist. 

The Indiana law requires anyone voting in person to present a current government photo ID. If you don’t have one, you can vote provisionally at the polls, but you must present the required ID at an appropriate government office within 10 days or your vote will not be counted. People who don’t have IDs can get them free from the state, but they must have other documents, such as a certified birth certificate and other secondary proof.

Click here to read the Supreme Court decision.

The law’s real effect, say its opponents, is to take away the right to vote from people of color and elderly, disabled and young citizens. Recent reports show, for example, that more than 40,000 Hoosier voters lack legal voter identification right now.

Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and lead counsel on the case, points out there is no evidence that Indiana’s voter ID law is justified by any actual problem of voting fraud, which already is prohibited by various criminal statutes in the state. No cases of in-person voting fraud have been prosecuted in the state in recent history, he says.   

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney says the decision, known as Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, puts the Supreme Court’s “seal of approval on what is in essence a poll tax.”   

It’s the wrong decision for our country, and the wrong decision for America’s working men and women.   

For many Americans, the cost of processing the paperwork for a government ID is so daunting they may not vote. The logistics of tracking down documents, traveling to offices and even just knowing where to begin can be extremely daunting for the elderly, the disabled, the poor and voters in rural communities.

For the crucial 2008 elections, the AFL-CIO will train hundreds of volunteers to advocate, educate and guard voters’ right to vote as part of its Voting Rights program. Click here to learn more about the program and here to volunteer to help protect voters’ rights on Election Day.  

Congressional leaders say the Indiana decision will add unnecessary roadblocks, preventing many from exercising their right to vote. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called the decision “disappointing.”

The Court’s decision today places obstacles to the fundamental rights of American citizens—especially the poor, the elderly and individuals with disabilities—to participate in the electoral process. Requiring American citizens to pay for underlying documents needed for an identification card and travel to distant motor vehicle locations for processing hinders—and diminishes—their right to vote.

The right to vote is a foundation of our democracy. American citizens who wish to vote must be able to do so.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says Indiana’s law and those like it “are roadblocks to democracy,” but added that this is not the end of the issue.

While today’s decision denies a facial challenge to the Indiana law, it allows future challenges in which there is more evidence of the harms caused by photo-ID laws.  As November approaches, Americans must remain vigilant to protect the right to vote in the face of this and other schemes to depress turnout. Voting is the most fundamental right in our democracy because it protects all other rights.

The decision also could have a negative impact on the youth vote, according to the Young Democrats of America (YDA). David Hardt, YDA president, says: 

Young voters will feel the effects of these disenfranchising laws just at the time when turnout among young people is on the rise. Make no mistake. These laws are a voter-suppression tool, with young voters—who have been voting overwhelmingly for Democrats in recent elections—in the crosshairs.

Earlier this year, a panel of experts said the Indiana law would be a bad model for the country. Deborah Goldberg, director of the Democracy Program for the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, says making the Indiana law the model could have a serious impact on voting rights in the country and open the gates to allow legislators to use the “unproven allegations of fraud” to justify widespread suppression of voting rights.

Tova Wang, a fellow at the Century Foundation, who co-authored research and filed a federally mandated report on the question, told National Public Radio (NPR):

We found that although there is fraud in the system, it doesn’t take place at the polling place.

Royal Masset, a consultant who by his own estimate has been involved in some 5,000 Republican campaigns in Texas, told NPR:

My experience is that in-person voter fraud is nonexistent. It doesn’t happen, and if you really analyze it, it makes no sense because who’s going to take the risk of going to jail on something so blatant that maybe changes one vote?

Voter fraud does exist, say the experts, but in more systematic ways, through ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation and absentee balloting.

Print This Article | E-Mail This Article |Comments (17)


Channels: Legislation & Politics

17 Comments

  1. Dr on 28.04.2008 at 18:57 (Reply)

    Crap these laws should have been passed years ago.Why shouldn’t a person prove they are a citizen before they go into a polling place to vote?If a little thing like proving your a citizen is going to stop you from voting that vote probably wasn’t needed anyway.This gaurantees only legal citizens vote.

    1. topgun on 29.04.2008 at 12:23 (Reply)

      It does nothing of the sort. It only gives whoever is in charge of the polls a way to keep people they don’t like from voting, like the “literacy trests” they used to have in the South to make sure only white people voted.

      Unless you plan on bringing a passport to the polls with you, I doubt that you could produce a photo ID that “proves your citizenship.” All your driver’s license says is that you’re competent to drive a car, and plenty of citizens don’t have them.

      The voter registration process, and matching signatures when you show up at the polls (or mail in your ballot like we do in Oregon), should be sufficient to prevent ID fraud from happening.

      Sorry, but you’re letting your resentment of illegal immigration allow you to be played for a sap.

  2. joelw135 on 29.04.2008 at 11:45 (Reply)

    Many elderly people that no longer drive do not have a government ID and might not be up to waiting on long lines to get one. That means that they can’t vote.

  3. Cynical on 29.04.2008 at 12:34 (Reply)

    Yes, I also don’t like this law. Now my deceased relatives can no longer vote and I can only vote once plus the illegal aliens can’t vote anymore.

  4. No Amnesty on 29.04.2008 at 12:39 (Reply)

    I am 100% behind the Supreme Court in their decision. The number of LEGAL US CITIZENS without photo ID is miniscule. And for those LEGAL citizens who don’t already have photo ID’s they are EASY to obtain. I think I even heard on the news that Indiana will provide FREE photo ID’s to it’s citizens. Voting is a privilege in this country and anyone who wants to exercise their right to that privilege shouldn’t balk at having that privilege PROTECTED. Voter fraud is rampant in this country and it’s high time we put an end to it! I hope ALL states who don’t already require photo ID follow suit.

  5. ibewdan on 29.04.2008 at 13:21 (Reply)

    I have to show two pieces of approved ID to prove I am a citizen or legal immigrant just to get accepted for employment by my union employer and have for over a decade. The IBEW never cried about me having to show two pieces of approved ID to get a Union job.

    If a state will provide a free, quality photo ID and make sure an applicant to vote is a citizen, then I have no problem with it.

  6. Rich A. on 29.04.2008 at 13:44 (Reply)

    Dr.

    C’mon! It isn’t illegal votes that steal elections. In 2000 the GOP engineered a scheme to deny registered voters of their voting-rights! That’s how Bush won!

    Rather than waving that GOP red-herring, you should be chastising the 45% of the people who do not vote. Instead of taking a few moments to cast a ballot, they lay at home on their dead-leads and watch lies on FOX News, or Bart Simpson.

    Of those who do vote, about half of them vote AGAINST their own best interests. They instead vote for candidates based on fringe issues. And what have they got to show for it? A health care crisis! An illegal war! US jobs moving offshore! Workers robbed of their pensions! Predatory lending practices! Under-funded public education! Unaffordable housing. Unsafe workplaces! Assaults of our environment. What chumps! While they vote fringe issues their pockets are being picked. It isn’t “illegal voters” who are ripping of the US. It is a bought and paid for Congress and president beholding to corporate interests.

    The real focus should be on getting everyone to vote, and then voting in their own best interests! When we vote in our own best interests, we inevitably vote in the interests of others who make up the 85% of America’s working class. When we do that we vote in the best interests of our nation. That’s patriotism!

    The Supreme Court is no friend of working America. The decisions they “render” screw us average folks and reward the already filthy rich.

    The Indiana decision is baloney. So are most of the members of the Supreme Court. The court is underwriting a mean-spirited neoconservative agenda. Sadly, that agenda continues to dupe people like you.

    What have you got to show for your loyalty to the right-wing?

    You – and the rest of us - have been sold out. Take off the rose-colored glasses. Our future, and the future of our children and grandchildren is being auctioned off to the highest bidder.

    1. inspector3500 on 29.04.2008 at 15:59 (Reply)

      Did the GOP take lessons from democrats and Mayor Daley in Chicago? Or maybe it was the democrat operative that was offering free cigarettes to bums to go vote?

      If people don’t care enough to vote, I don’t want them voting. The only people this will keep from voting are the illegal aliens.

      Proud member of the vast great right wing conspiracy!

  7. Dr on 29.04.2008 at 14:55 (Reply)

    Dear Rich ,for a long time now in the building trades I have had to submit two forms of ID,submit to a background check and pass it,submit to a drug test and pass it,furnish basic safety equipment,steel toe shoes and prescription safety glasses,be osha certified,know cpr,before I can go to work for a contractor I don’t see anyone having a fit about it.To me proving you are a citizen before you vote is a minor problem.

  8. facts_not_fear on 29.04.2008 at 15:09 (Reply)

    Did any of you apologists for the establishment actually READ the story? The IDs may be free but to get one requires time and expense to get the proper paperwork. In the court decision, it is pointed out that the $10 fee for a birth certificate is actually more money, adjusted for inflation, than the $1.50 poll tax that the court struck down half a century ago. Three of the majority opinion justices noted that this kind of voter fraud has not occurred in Indiana, and several studies have shown that it hardly occurs at all. Think about it. Current laws say that a person still has to show some evidence of who they are in order to vote (just not a photo ID. a utility bill, or voter registration card will often suffice). So, the fraudulent voter would have to create documents with a false, but still REGISTERED, name, then go to the polling station repeatedly with different documents each time. But more likely, since poll workers tend to be at the same place all day, in order to not be recognized, the fraudulent voter would likely have to go to different polling places each time, again making sure that the assumed identity was actually ON THE REGISTRATION LIST and HAD NOT ALREADY VOTED! So, after all that, how many votes have been fixed?

    Now, some of you have mentioned dead people voting. If that were the legitimate reason, why not enforce existing laws to make election boards properly clean up their voter registration lists and adequately fund those efforts?

    and lastly, if you were an undocumented immigrant, why would you risk going to a polling place and being caught? The last thing an undocumented person wants is contact with official government entities. Once again, blaming immigrants for illegally voting is a straw man concocted to hide blatant racism. And to use an argument that the right likes to use when they think “big” government is interfering in our lives, these voter ID laws are nothing but a solution looking for a problem.

    1. No Amnesty on 01.05.2008 at 15:24 (Reply)

      facts_not_fear says: and lastly, if you were an undocumented immigrant, why would you risk going to a polling place and being caught? The last thing an undocumented person wants is contact with official government entities. Once again, blaming immigrants for illegally voting is a straw man concocted to hide blatant racism.

      “blaming immigrants for illegaly voting is a straw man conconcted to hide blatant racism.” We’re not concerned about immigrants voting. The ones who have become naturalized citizens have as much right to vote as those of us who were born here. We’re concerned about illegals voting. Illegals are not immigrants. Immigrants come here legally. They belong. Illegals don’t. And racism? Against what race? Did I miss something? Has illegal now been defined as a race? If so could you please enlighten me.
      As for the illegals ‘risking’ going to a polling place? Why not? They ‘risk’ skulking into the country illegally. They ‘risk’ openly standing on street corners to get work. They ‘risk’ using hospital er’s as their PCP’s. And, of course, never paying. They ‘risk’ marching in our streets demanding the same rights and privileges as legal residents. And let us not forget they ‘risk’ using stolen/fraudulent ID’s. So I can’t imagine they’d think twice about ‘risking’ a chance to elect a politician that would give them a ‘path to citizenship’!

  9. inspector3500 on 29.04.2008 at 16:04 (Reply)

    Here it is in a nutshell….

    http://www.gopusa.com/images/cartoons/2008/fullsize/ml_0429.jpg

  10. Krom on 29.04.2008 at 16:05 (Reply)

    I will side with the Supreme Court on this one. Voting in this great country is more free and open then it ever was in the time of our founding fathers. And the duty to vote should be taken at least as seriously as the privilege of driving a car. Having once been young, I know I would have stood on a line for two days if that was necessary to get my drivers license. (And in some countrys people still do that to vote.). Having to identify oneself is hardly cause for sackcloth and ashes.

  11. union friend on 29.04.2008 at 19:05 (Reply)

    There is a large percentage of the population, the aging Americans. They have voted for their entire adult lives. Many, many of them DO NOT have photo IDs. Why is it now so important for these voters to now prove their identities. Let’s get real. Voter fruad by individuals is negligible. (Real voter fraud is caused by politics). The elderly on fixed incomes and minorities have typically voted Democrat. Do you see a Republican conspiracy here? Well, I do. Any two kinds of ID proof should be valid. Besides, illegals can and do get driver’s licenses - don’t kid yourself, but I really don’t think they would risk voting, anyway.

    To Krom: Yeah, voting at the time of our founding fathers was limited to white male landowners. It should be “more free”, but the ability to vote should not be restricted because of one’s socio-economic status, and you know very well what this Supreme Court decision means for this particular population.

    To Cynical: Yes, you are.

    To Dr: A contractor can always vote, but a voter can’t always do contracting. A person has the right to vote as an American citizen. Making a person “prove” citizenship may not be as easy as you think for the elderly and poor; besides at one point, they may have very well proven their citizenship. WE must err on the side of human here. Besides, a few illegal votes, if they do in fact get through, will not make that big a difference, and you know it. But sadly, this Supreme Court decision WILL have an impact on the many, many votes that will not be able to be cast legally, and this can have a huge impact on who gets elected.

    To No Amnesty: No, your wrong. The number of US citizens that do not have a photo ID is not minuscule; it is HUGE.

    To RichA.: I couldn’t have said it better myself; however, one must consider that the 45% who do not vote are part of the elderly, the sick and disabled who are not able to vote. That is why every single able-bodied citizen who is able to vote should definitely do so, and I agree with you in that a large part of the problem is that they vote against their best interests, and sadly, it is the dishonest politicians that know just how to persuade the gullible, uneducated and poor just what their best interests are!

  12. coloneblog on 29.04.2008 at 21:47 (Reply)

    Do you think any of the Justices who voted for bush over Gore have any remorse for the enormous tragedy from their decision in 2000? You know, their political decision back then has led to 10’s of thousands of innocent people dying, huge national debt, inability to resolve all sorts of important government policy issues, a weakened America, a corrupt legally challenged administration that does not believe in the rule of law, and an incompetent laughing stock in the eyes of the World community. Those justices backing the majority decision 8 years ago are just as guilty for the administrations failures as Cheney and bush themselves. I wouldn’t trust them as far as I could throw them on any decision.

  13. Rich A. on 30.04.2008 at 02:48 (Reply)

    Dear Dr.

    I do not know how old you are, but a sordid piece of US history involves the screenings that took place in the 40’s and 50’s. Union men and women were denied work opportunities because - it was alleged - they hung out with the “wrong crowd”. Two of the people who were screened and denied employment were friends of mine. They were also decorated war vets! They got screwed by two-bit flag waving ruthless politicians who were peddling nothing but fear….sort of like the current administration does.

    Most of the building trades went along with the witch hunts.

    Now you got what you got. Just don’t wish it on me or anyone else. I do not want to have to jump through the hoops you agreed to jump through.

    Same thing goes for voting.

    ________________________

    Dear Inspector:

    Be consistent! Instead of having “aliens” serving in our military (like many do) send the kids of the proud, vast great right wing conspiracy you champion. The brave right wing…Dick Cheney with five deferments…AWOL George Bush…and other chicken hawks that want everyone else to fight while they sell America down the drain.

    I’ll bet your old right wing fanny never turns down the goodies that your union negotiates for you, does it? And yet you support labor-hating right wingers? Talk about hypocrisy!
    By the way….do you vote?

    _______________________

    Dear Krom -

    Side with the Supreme Court? It’s nearly the same court that stole the election from Gore in 2000.

    Why would you even trust it to do the right thing?

  14. topgun on 30.04.2008 at 12:32 (Reply)

    It’s fascinating how some folks assume this is about illlegal immigrants, when the court decision (and the Indiana law) does not even deal with the issue of citizenship–it simply makes it harder for everyone to vote. It won’t stop people from crossing the border and it certainly won’t do anything about the conditions (like NAFTA) which drove people to cross the border in the first place.

    How much of your own rights are you willing to sacrifice to satisfy your obsession with immigration?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Register to Comment and sign up to get action alerts and e-news.

 
Jeff Crosby
Out in the grassroots, workers are mighty angry at the thought their health care benefits could be taxed in a health care reform plan.
Read more diaries from the field >>
 
Ari A. Matusiak
Young America Wants Health Care Reform
 
Contact Us | Disclaimer