Supreme Court to Throw Another Election?

Gloating about doing wrong is a higher degree of venality than just committing evil. Several Republican judges openly acknowledge that the Indiana law--and 23 others like it, enacted in other states--will hurt the Democrats, but nevertheless champion such laws. Judge Richard Posner, who wrote in the majority opinion upholding the Indiana law for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, affirmed that "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" and that "the new law injures the Democratic Party by compelling the party to devote resources to getting to the polls those of its supporters who would otherwise be discouraged by the new law from bothering to vote." Now the Republican-dominated Supreme Court seems inclined to follow suit --and rule that these laws are constitutional.

If the highest court in the land will indeed allow these discriminatory laws to stand, if it will continue to be so blatantly partisan, the people will have few choices other than impeach some of these judges or increase the number of judges on the court, as Roosevelt threatened to do, in order to add some progressive judges.

At first it may seem that the Indiana law, and others like it, are politically neutral. All these laws require is that each voter present a state issued form of ID, photo included. However, in effect these laws are about as discriminatory against the elderly, the poor, the less educated and minorities as the old literacy tests and poll tax laws. These social groups contain most of the voters who have no such ID cards and who do not have the means to go and acquire them. (For instance, consider senior citizens in nursing homes, who would have to find their birth certificates, have them validated, and present them in state offices to get their photo IDs). Indeed it is estimated that more then ten percent of Americans-- some 21 million people! - have no such IDs, and most belong to these vulnerable groups, which tend to lean toward the Democrats. Given that elections are often tight, disenfranchising more than one out of ten voters is enough to throw many elections. Given that the electoral voters of a few states, even one, can decide an election, affecting the elections in 24 states goes a long way to favor the Republicans.

Those who favor the Indiana-like voter ID laws, for instance the right wing editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, argue that electoral fraud must be prevented, and IDs are a good way to proceed. (The same ideologues go ballistic when ID cards are suggested for other purposes). However, strong data shows that there is next to no voter fraud due to misidentification--and fairly wide abuse due to ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation and absentee balloting.

The Supreme Court already greatly endangered its legitimacy when it in effect granted the elections to Bush over Gore. If it will turn partisan in this case, its legitimacy will be further undermined in an age when the national executive and national legislature--think Bush and Congress--are already much distrusted. It is crucial for American democracy that at least the highest court be considered fair. Hopefully the justices will see the light and reject the Indiana and other such voter ID laws. If not, as unappealing such a line of action is, the people will have to act, by either impeaching Scalia and company or adding some progressive judges to balance the court, and to set it right.

****
Micro-blog: Len Cole, the author of a book on terror, asked a bunch of people what they would do if they got a letter at work, and on opening it found that some white powder poured out which they suspected was anthrax. Many said that would bring it to their manager. I guess no love is lost here.

Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor at George Washington University and the author of The New Golden Rule. Further access to his work is available by contacting [e-mail].

Comments

[RTIII]

While I agree with the main points of this article, I take exception with one particular point and note a few minor errors.

...Ahem... The Supreme Court didn't "greatly endanger its legitimacy" with the 2000 decision crowning Bush, it DESTROYED its legitimacy. Since then, it has only gotten worse. The SCOTUS us now in the hands of the "evildoers" - and has been since at least that terrible "decision." Frankly, it was absolutely plainly unconsitutional for them to even consider the case, and they as much as say so in their "decision," claiming that they acted to let the population know sooner and with certainty, rather than let the constitution play itself out in January as the Founding Fathers had planned.

Secondly, there are now over 300M people in the USA, though there might be only 210M which can vote.

[Researchguy66]

There are so many other problems with the voting system in this country, Voter ID laws should hardly be an issue.

It's merely a challenge for Democrats to register voters AND help them obtain valid identification. I'd rather see Democrats work on getting proportional representation in numbers of voting machines, personally. I'll bet that does more to disenfranchise Democratic voters than any ID law will.

[ljsfolly]

Well we know that voter fraud will be rampant and is already a sure bet to have some challenges as the machines without paer backing will be hacked or programed for the vote to go where those who mess with the machines want. They are owned by republicans. The very idea that someone cannot walk up to a vote booth with their name on the list eligible to vote to be turned away. Many who are elderly don't drive and have a photo ID. Those without cars will be also punished by no photo Id as why have a licence if you don't drive? Too many circumstances leave us knowing that there will be people valid voters turned away due to some law passed to vet the vote. Strange that the more we rely on computers the less rights we have as the vote will be taken away from so many and give no voice to those who need it most.

[Giglawyer]

I find it troubling that any judge can speculate as to the political impact of a plainly neutral law. Voting is a right, and one that should not be trifled with. But, it is so easy to get a photo ID, I don't understand why this is a hassle.

That said, I oppose any Voter ID requirement that doesn't give voters at least 1 year to comply.

[Cedman]

I know this is off topic but, I think it runs along a similar line. What is the constitutional impact of a former president without defined legal constraints operating within the White House?

[Pdubya]

what does the supreme court have to do with deibold and its minions? that is the question.

paper ballots ya'll eejits.

[Unsui]

"...and fairly wide abuse due to ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation and absentee balloting"

Yes, and not to mention the full scale election fraud perpetrated by the justice dept. under the Bush/Cheney regime.

[TheIndependenceParty]

The most troubling aspect of the hard right turn by the supremes in the last seven years is not that they lied about their positions during confirmation hearings, although they seem to have hidden their agenda from the start. No, it is that they appear ready to act in the same manner despite clear acknowledgements of inequality as was rendered in Judge Posner's comments in support of the decision in Indiana.

Such partisan use of judicial power goes beyond the abuses by the Congress and the Executive which the Nation has suffered over the last Seven years. It is worse because there is no election to the bench. The only civil recourse is impeachment or an amendment to expand the bench, something I neither condone nor foresee.

Scalia's comment, attributed to him when asked about the Bush v Gore decision terminating the recount in Florida, was suposedly "Get over it!" That singularly brash, partisan, and obscene comment may be his legacy on the bench. It might also be a harbinger of his undoing. The appearance of impartiality from a life appointee to the bench is the least that can be expected by the People. Many on the bench do not even rise to that crass minimum standard.

Undoing the damage of Bush may well be more traumtic to America than all we have suffered of his reign. The Court I fear, may be the most traumatic of all!

[Smokr]

And furthermore, in an open democracy, let alone the free republic that The United States of America is supposed to be, all votes should be open and transparent, not hidden and secret.
Everyone should know who they voted for and who everyone else voted for. Why hide whom you voted for. We tell everyone anyway, don't we?
Open vote!

[paixa3]

As a foreigner, I find it interesting that the citizens ROLLED OVER so easily when the supreme court intervened in national elections.

DAMN SHAME TOO.