In 2005, Indiana passed a law requiring all citizens to show a photo ID before being allowed to vote. The law was enacted on a strict party line; every Republican in the state legislature voted in favor, and every Democrat voted against. The law was sharply criticized for responding to a non-existent problem -- there is not a single example in Indiana history of in-person voter impersonation -- and for aiming to suppress poor and minority voter turnout. Poor and minority (i.e. Democratic) voters, not surprisingly, are much less likely to have valid photo IDs than wealthy and white (i.e. Republican) voters.
Despite these problems, the Supreme Court recently held that the law is constitutional. The Court downplayed the burden imposed by the law on people lacking IDs, asserting that "the inconvenience of making a trip to the DMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote." The Court added that it simply "d[id] not know the magnitude of the impact [the law] will have on indigent voters in Indiana."
Last week, Indiana held its first statewide election since the voter ID law was enacted: the Democratic Party presidential primary. And based on the primary's results, it is possible to conclude, at least preliminarily, that the "magnitude of the [law's] impact" is substantial -- and thus that the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold it.
Consider Marion and Lake Counties. They are Indiana's two most populous counties (home, respectively, to Indianapolis and Gary) and the stronghold of the state's Democratic Party. They are also substantially poorer and blacker than the rest of the state. In 2004, Marion County accounted for 16.7% of all the votes cast in Indiana for Sen. John Kerry, and Lake County accounted for 11.8%. What did these numbers look like in the 2008 Democratic primary? Surely the counties' poor and minority voters turned out in higher proportions to support Sen. Barack Obama?
Actually, no. Marion County accounted for just 14.9% of the votes cast in the primary (a decline of 11 percent). And Lake County, despite Gary Mayor Rudy Clay's boasts of unprecedented turnout, accounted for just 10.2% of the votes (a decline of almost 14 percent). In other words, relative turnout in Indiana's poorest and blackest counties declined significantly between 2004 and 2008 -- even though the most appealing black politician in memory was on the 2008 ballot.
It is not possible, of course, to attribute all the blame for the relative turnout decline on the new voter ID law. Sen. Hillary Clinton zealously rallied her supporters, who were concentrated outside Indiana's big cities. Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos, which called for Republicans to cross over and vote for Sen. Clinton, may have been responsible for some of the turnout boost in Indiana's suburban and rural counties. And 2004-2008 comparisons are tricky since the 2004 statistics are from the general election while the 2008 numbers are from a primary.
Still, it seems likely that a good number of Marion and Lake County voters who otherwise would have voted for Sen. Obama stayed home because they lacked photo IDs. It is difficult to imagine why else relative turnout in these counties would have declined in an election cycle that has been characterized by spikes of interest in Democratic strongholds. (Relative turnout in Philadelphia, for example, was up in 2008 compared to 2004.) It is thus plausible that Sen. Clinton owes her razor-thin victory in the Indiana primary to the state's new voter ID law (as well as to the Supreme Court, which upheld it). A law intended to benefit Republicans may instead have won the election for the Democrat running the more Republican-style campaign.
On the other hand, voting is a fragile thing and creating a requirement which makes it harder for one group than another is anti-voting. In this case, Indiana is defining ID so narrowly that it helps disenfranchise both younger and poorer voters.
It's pretty simple to avoid voter fraud, since in every case, the voter must have his/her signature on file. Just require a signature and have a file copy of the original at the polling place. This counters voter fraud and it disenfranchises nobody.
BTW, I"m curious about what Indiana is doing about absentee ballots. How does a voter now residing overseas show a government ID to a poll worker? Or is that not a problem since most absentee voters are Republicans?
I hope a case about voting machines comes before the supreme court. They approved IDs, even though there hasn't been one case to show where it was necessary to do so. Now they need to hear about the machines where there are many problems. This need to be brought before them.
So you don't have a government issued photo ID card - cuz you never needed one before. You don't have a car or drivers license - no passport never go anywhere.
Now what - gotta produce a birth certificate or social security card at a center that takes 2 buses to get to and about 55 minutes and $2.00 each way. You're on minimum wage can't really take time off work but you go anyway. Then you wait in line 47 minutes to pay $8.75 or whatever get your photo ID card and take the bus back for another 55 minutes or so.
This is a best case scenario unless you're easy walking distance from the place. - the clerk could refuse whatever paper you brought in cuz the birth certificate is a baptismal certificate, but you were born in another city and don't know which hospital. The clerk a career bureaucrat like Marge Simpsons sisters maybe doesn't care if you vote and is unhelpful. Maybe you finally get a photo ID card and maybe you don't. Given that there has NEVER been even one case of voter impersonation - skeptical dudes might wonder why this obstacle has been created.
However, I think that the statistics you use are misleading. Consider Lake County, Indiana. (Source, Lake County Clerk's web site.)
2008 primary - Democrats - 92,934 votes
2004 general -
REGISTERED VOTERS - Total . . . . . 382,835
BALLOTS CAST - Total. . . . . . . 276,609
Kerry/Edwards (DEM) . . . . . . . 134,352 - or 48.72 %
2004 primary
BALLOTS CAST - DEMOCRATIC . . . . . 47,205
BALLOTS CAST - REPUBLICAN . . . . . 46,222
So, the Democratic primary vote doubled in Lake County from 2004 to 2008. If the Lake County share of the total vote has gone down, it's because it went up even more elsewhere. It is hard to conclude that a vote that doubles has been suppressed without other evidence.
So, I don't see how these numbers really provide support for your argument. Doesn't mean that the Law didn't suppress the vote, but you can't really say so from these numbers.
How about we require everyone voting to have a soul?
The problem is not that these people necessarily have no i.d. The problem is that students, many of whom are voting on the Univeristy of Indiana, Purdue and Notre Dame campuses, brought in their STUDENT i.d.s as any right-thinking individual might. Add to that school and finals had just ended that Saturday, many were graduating Sunday, packing relatives off home Monday and trying to vote Tuesday. That's a lot to ask from anyone. Given that the law only passed like literally 3 weeks ago, it's a reasonable conclusion. They were then turned away. Student i.d.s it turns out are not state i.d.s.
It was an absurd law and if passed, like any other law, there need to be some reasonable exceptions made. To me it's clear intent is to marginalize not minority, but rather young voters. It was passed by a G.O.P. Supreme Court mysteriously in the middle of a presidential primary and just before states with two of the biggest university systems (Indiana and North Carolina) voted. To me it's clearly an attempt to depress the Democratic turnout. Pure and simple.
Have you forgotten Mr. Scalia? You know, the guy who had his son's on Bush' legal team, or was that his wife, or was that all three, when the destruction of... I mean, election of 2000 was taking place?
Cwazy Wabbit!
Are you related to George?
Because there is a different world, just below the world that I guess you spend your time in, where almost everything is "on the left" as the Russians would say, with payments under the table, no insurance, no credit cards, no IDs, and little legitimacy in the eyes of the state. These are the people who are being steadily disenfranchised in our time.
Yet we saw massive voter fraud in the recent primary due to republicans crossing over to manipulate the results in both the presidential and gubenatorial democratic primary
In the presidential we had Limabughs operation chaos, and in the governors race we had republicans cross over to support Schellinger, the weaker and lesser experienced candidate to help out Bush crony incumbent gov, Mitch Daniels who will have a tougher time against experienced pol Jill Long Thompson
Here's a new dictionary entry:
Republican: One who cheats, lies, steals, manipulates, threatens and subdues another to get his or her way, while hiding behind christian or any faith.
I think that's about right...no?
When all else fails make it up right?
And don't forget the elderly nuns (and some students).