Why Is Requiring Voter ID A Supreme Court Matter?
The United States Supreme Court will take a case challenging Indiana's requirement that an identification card be shown before allowing someone to vote in elections. To catch up on the news stories, see Marcia Odd's Indiana Law Blog.
I don't understand why identifying that someone has only voted once is such an impediment to voting. Indiana law allows the poor to obtain an identification card for free. If a voter loses an ID card, he or she can fill out a provisional ballot on election day. Doesn't everyone already have an identification card issued by a state or federal government entity so that he or she can conduct all sorts of business?
Identification cards are required for almost every other activity in society.
Some examples:
An identification card is required to gain access to the Federal building in Hammond. Is the fact that a U.S. Marshal requires one to show a driver's license or some other form of ID denying someone their ability to access the Federal court system or to visit Sen. Evan Bayh's office located in the building?
Driver's licenses are required to operate motor vehicles.
Some form of identification is required to pay for items using a check.
Some argue that vote fraud isn't a problem in Indiana. That notion dismisses the vote fraud cases that have been brought in Lake County and ignores previous court decisions regarding East Chicago elections.
Checking IDs at the polls ensures democracy by making sure that every vote counts.
Why shouldn't we require identification to ensure that every voter's vote counts? By not checking identification cards, we allow for the dilution of legitimate votes by people who "vote early and often."
An identification card isn't difficult to obtain if one has the proper documentation required by the BMV. Why not make sure that everyone's votes count equally so that we can say with certainty that every citizen's vote is treated equally.
I don't understand why identifying that someone has only voted once is such an impediment to voting. Indiana law allows the poor to obtain an identification card for free. If a voter loses an ID card, he or she can fill out a provisional ballot on election day. Doesn't everyone already have an identification card issued by a state or federal government entity so that he or she can conduct all sorts of business?
Identification cards are required for almost every other activity in society.
Some examples:
An identification card is required to gain access to the Federal building in Hammond. Is the fact that a U.S. Marshal requires one to show a driver's license or some other form of ID denying someone their ability to access the Federal court system or to visit Sen. Evan Bayh's office located in the building?
Driver's licenses are required to operate motor vehicles.
Some form of identification is required to pay for items using a check.
Some argue that vote fraud isn't a problem in Indiana. That notion dismisses the vote fraud cases that have been brought in Lake County and ignores previous court decisions regarding East Chicago elections.
Checking IDs at the polls ensures democracy by making sure that every vote counts.
Why shouldn't we require identification to ensure that every voter's vote counts? By not checking identification cards, we allow for the dilution of legitimate votes by people who "vote early and often."
An identification card isn't difficult to obtain if one has the proper documentation required by the BMV. Why not make sure that everyone's votes count equally so that we can say with certainty that every citizen's vote is treated equally.
Labels: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board No. 07-21, Democratic Party v. Rokita No. 07-25, Indiana voter ID law, US Supreme Court
posted by Chris Hedges at
7:16 AM
5 Comments:
The argument against having an ID deals with the notion that it it would lead to disenfranchisement of minority voters.
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=TN&pubid=1084
http://www.acluga.org/photoID/
I've always used the slippery slope argument which you basically document in your post. An ID for driving (privilege) is now being used for all sorts of other things.
If we do not repeal the REAL ID Act, we may be having to show it before we can make purchases!
Hi Dave,
Good to see you again.
I heard someone talking about this subject and they suggested the best way to prevent "early and often" voting might be to do what the Iraqis did in their election -- mark people's thumbs with ink that would last at least the duration of the election day.
Having people vote is important. And, it is also important to protect the integrity of the system so that people don't vote multiple times to influence the outcome of an election (whether for the Democrats or Republicans or any particular third-party).
Maybe the low-tech solution of using ink could be the solution that makes the most sense.
I do think that the argument that there are people who can't obtain an ID doesn't work since obtaining a state identification card isn't that difficult for citizens or non-citizens to obtain legally and at no cost if someone is in dire economic straits.
Chris,
Have you researched the vote fraud from using Diebold electronic voting machines?
Sites
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
http://www.votefraud.org/
Videos
http://www.archive.org/details/election2004-video-CD
Chris,
I found the link I really wanted to send
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhMUtzOxjJY&NR
Please watch it and do your own research.
Hi Dave,
I'll have to take a look at the video. I remember reading some stories about Diebold, but I didn't really pay much attention since we aren't using those machines in our area.
Post a Comment
<< Home