Justice Dept halts South Carolina voter suppression law

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Poll tax receipt from the 1930s. Southern states used such taxes to prevent African Americans from voting

The Justice Department on Friday blocked a new South Carolina law that would require voters to present photo identification, saying the law would disproportionately suppress turnout among eligible minority voters. The move was the first time since 1994 that the department has exercised its powers under the Voting Rights Act to block a voter identification law. In a letter to the South Carolina government, Thomas E. Perez, the assistant attorney for civil rights, said that allowing the new requirement to go into effect would have “significant racial disparities.” He cited data supplied by the state as showing that there were “81,938 minority citizens who are already registered to vote and who lack” such identification, and that these voters are nearly 20 percent more likely be “disenfranchised” by the change than white voters.

Gov. Nikki Haley denounced the decision, accusing the Obama administration of “bullying” the state. “It is outrageous, and we plan to look at every possible option to get this terrible, clearly political decision overturned so we can protect the integrity of our electoral process and our 10th Amendment rights,” she said in a statement. Under the Voting Rights Act, an election rule or practice that disproportionately affects minority voters is illegal — even if there is no sign of discriminatory intent. South Carolina is one of several states that, because of a history of discriminatory practices, must prove that a measure would not disproportionately discourage minority voting. Such states must receive “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department or a federal court before any proposed change to elections rules can take place.^[1.]

I think this is a great. While several arguments have been made that voter id cards can be provided free of charge, many states require birth certificates, which are not free. There is also a case pending in Wisconsin, where Ruthelle Frank, an 84 year old woman who was not born in a hospital, but at home, and consequently had no birth certificate, would be required to spend hundreds of dollars in court costs. Ms. Frank has voted with no previous issues for most of her life; and she's currently a plaintiff in a lawsuit brought before a Federal judge to overturn Wisconsin's new voter ID laws.




Ruthelle Frank of Wisconsin, will not be able to vote under current Wisconsin law

The Brennan Justice Center released a study earlier this year showing that nearly 5 million people would be disenfranchised as a result of new laws enacted by Republican state legislatures.





[1.] Source: New York Times article "Justice Dept. Cites Race in Halting Law Over Voter ID."

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the problem is a lack of verifiable ID, regardless of how it affects the voting.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

No. The problem is South Carolina has to prove that the laws election rules would not suppress minority voting. The ball is in their court legally now. :-)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

The real problem, not this minor thing.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

Per the New York Times, this obviously is not the first time South Carolina voting practices have been scrutinized. As you quoted in the article:

"South Carolina is one of several states that, because of a history of discriminatory practices, must prove that a measure would not disproportionately discourage minority voting."

Maybe it's time to put South Carolina on double secret probation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Which is funny, since the Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of voter ID laws.

[allisnow.livejournal.com]

It makes me wonder what these people do if they, say, need to pick up a prescription at the drug store or something. I do remember reading somewhere that the SC law had an exemption for people for whom getting a picture ID would be onerous, I'm just not sure how that all works logistically :)

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

It makes me wonder what these people do if they, say, need to pick up a prescription at the drug store or something.

I don't know how it works outside of NYC, but I've never had to show ID for a prescription. Hell, I get prescriptions from other people without having to show any kind of ID. I just need to know their name, address, birthdate, and what they're getting. Then again, I'm normally picking up mundane prescriptions that probably aren't too fun to take.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Or when the cops harass them for whatever reason and ask for ID. Oops.

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

That's the standard line you hear from Republicans trying to defend these laws, but then they're never willing to do anything to make it easier for people to get IDs. While I don't think that disenfranchising the poor is the main goal of this legislation, I'm sure that they consider it a positive, or at least neutral, side effect.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

Look, it just HAPPENED that Scott Walker wants voter ID laws passed at the same time he's closing DMVs.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's the standard line you hear from Republicans trying to defend these laws, but then they're never willing to do anything to make it easier for people to get IDs.

If there are Republicans who are a) in favor of voter ID laws and b) are not willing to allow voter IDs to be given out for free to those who do not already have a license, I'm unaware of them.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Sure, and in the Jim Crow days if your grandfather could vote, you could pay a poll tax, and you could read you could vote....except if you were all these and black in which case your attempts to do so got you strung up from a tree.

[l555l.livejournal.com]

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Photo ID requirements are fine by me, so long as the documents required to garner them are also entirely free

There have been some efforts to make birth certificates for the purpose of voting IDs free (Democrats typically offer the bills), but Republican state houses vote them down by huge majorities (citing cost as the reason to not do this. LULZ). Yet Florida will spend millions urine testing unemployment recipients to catch 5 percent (or less) who are getting benefits.

Considering how much illegal aliens are a nightmare for Republicans, and think voter fraud is so just insanely rampant, you'd think they'd see the wisdom of all the money saved by giving state citizens free copies of their birth certificates.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

South Carolina's still too small to be a country and too large to be an insane asylum.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Daily quote!

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

At least 30 other states already require some form of I.D. in voting. The majority also offer FREE I.D. for voting (and that's a known fact, posted on DMV websites and in their publications) AND states offer alternatives for people who don't have I.D. at the time of voting. The argument that requiring I.D. is somehow disenfranchising is a load of bull and just speaks to how lazy people are. Yes, I just said that and I stick by it.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

"Yes, I just said that and I stick by it."

well good for you!
...
you are still wrong

[telemann.livejournal.com]

In case you galloped in and didn't read the entire post, or the article or any of the links (hell, I'll settle just with my original post), which clearly states the issue for obtaining FREE IDs is that several states require you to obtain a state supplied and registered birth certificate. That's not free. That also requires some sort of proof of ID when you attempt to get a registered copy . And in some instances, some folks do not have birth certificates because they were birth in a private home ( ^^ DING DING DING ^^ I vaguely remember that being brought up in my post, something about an 80 year old woman in Wisconsin who would need to spend hundreds of dollars in court costs). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the people that would be affected the most by these requirements are dirt poor. But if Republicans are so concerned about the voting process, then these states can simply comply with the voting rights act and give out free birth certificates to its citizens.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Several things occur to me about voter id laws that I am somewhat surprised that the more conservative and libertarian among us are not more insistent upon:

1) If you are going to require a photo id to vote, there should be a demonstrable case of voter fraud that is both statistically significant enough to require intervention AND correctable via voter id.

2) Acquisition of an id for the purposes of voting should be absolutely free for both the identification and for whatever documentation is needed to obtain it. Anything else is a poll tax is all but name.

3) Acquisition of an id must be not any more inconvenient than registering to vote. Anything else is adding a barrier to people exercising their franchise.

Proponents of voter id laws have consistently failed to demonstrate a need based on condition one. There may be cases of voter fraud, but none that has the ability to statistically effect elections. The closest to a respectable argument is that the exercise of voting is so important to the body politic as a whole, that ANY case of fraud damages confidence in outcomes and is damaging. That may be philosophically admirable, but it falls short of demonstrating a significant problem.

Failing to prove condition one, I'd argue that conditions two and three are absolutely essential for any voter id requirement to not consitute disenfranchisement of eligible voters. Adding cost to the right to exercise one's franchise is a poll tax. Adding burdens beyond ones that already exist is effectively barring eligible voter from the polls. And frankly, this is not easy -- if the only way to obtain a voter id is to pay money for a copy of a long lost birth certificate and then to take a day off of work to go to the DMV or to travel to a county seat in a rural area, you are going to trim the voter rolls of people who the day before could exercise their right to vote. If you cannot clear out those burdens AND you cannot demonstrate a statistically significant problem with voter fraud associated with lack of photo id, then I contend you should not go this route.

And yes, there are many things you cannot do without a photo id. Those things are, generally, not rights. People fought and died to protect the franchise from being denied to categories of people. We should not add barriers to voting without significant and demonstrable need, especially when those barriers absolutely negatively impact some categories of people more than others.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

1) If you are going to require a photo id to vote, there should be a demonstrable case of voter fraud that is both statistically significant enough to require intervention AND correctable via voter id.

Problem - this type of ID fraud is not pursued and not investigated, most likely due to the lengths it would take to figure it out. We have examples (http://electionlawblog.org/wp-content/uploads/1984_grand_jury_report-r84-11.pdf), the Carter/Baker Commission (http://www.american.edu/spa/cdem/carter-baker-commision.cfm) found examples, and the most blatant point is how easy it is - given the public nature of voting habits, all someone has to do is see who doesn't vote very often (0 or 1 times in the previous 4 elections, for example), show up at the polls, and claim to be that person. With no ID requirement, the amount of voting one could get away with is really only limited by gender and number of voters who haven't voted.

And this is not being investigated. The only way people would know is if there are complaints, and, unless you're voting outside of your normal trend, how would you know?

2) Acquisition of an id for the purposes of voting should be absolutely free for both the identification and for whatever documentation is needed to obtain it. Anything else is a poll tax is all but name.

I know of no one who thinks they should not be free. Many may believe that the fee to get an ID is not an undue burden, but I know of no one who wouldn't trade the fee for more secure voting.

3) Acquisition of an id must be not any more inconvenient than registering to vote. Anything else is adding a barrier to people exercising their franchise.

Also not something I've seen put out there.

And yes, there are many things you cannot do without a photo id. Those things are, generally, not rights. People fought and died to protect the franchise from being denied to categories of people.

To be fair, we do not technically have a right to vote. The only point federally that matters is that the Constitution limits how the government can restrict that right, but does not forbid the government from doing so.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Good. Now maybe they'll do something about the idiotic law in Kansas.

See, I don't have a problem with requiring a state-issued photo ID for voting. In fact, I think it's stupid not to have one. But, it has to be done right, and for the right reasons. South Carolina's law was calculated (consciously or not) to disenfranchise poor minority voters. Kansas' law was brought about by Secretary of State Kris Kobach's War on (Fictitious) Voting Fraud, deliberately aimed at scaring people into passing the law.

If a state is going to require a photo ID to vote, then that state has to ensure that, along every step of the way, obtaining the necessary documents is absolutely free. Any charge for, say, a birth certificate, has the effect, when required to obtain a necessary ID, of being a poll tax. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that poll taxes for purposes of state elections are unconstitutional, and I would say that any indirect fee associated with voter registration is also a poll tax.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

When you abuse historical symbolism you devalue it.

Not letting people vote unless they can verify who they are is in no way comparable to asking a black man how many bubbles are in a bar of soap or asking him for all of his money before giving him a ballot.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Except that this is one of the methods used in addition to those refined ones and the crude ones of hanging someone and burning the corpse and distributing postcards of the hanging. Those good old fashioned family values in those days, string up a black man for being too successful for his own good and show postcards of it. How fortunate that the USA made the transition to civilized government by rule of law instead of the vulgar excesses of the rich and elite jealous of their position.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, if we cannot trust government to regulate how businesses engage in fraud, why should we trust government with this kind of law to regulate voter fraud? Isn't this an admission that corporations and the right of bureaucracies to act unimpeded matter far more than individual liberty? No, that could never be it. Libertarians are completely and utterly concerned with individual liberty and preventing abuse of the government in sordid fashions with bad histories. They'd never oppose it in one fashion and support it in the other.