Voter suppression. It’s not just your grandfather’s problem any more. Over the past few years, Republican legislatures across the country have enacted a variety of laws that are intended to suppress the vote, all in the name of eliminating “voter fraud.” Now, the U.S. Supreme Court is giving the stamp of approval to most of those laws.
On October 18, the court issued an early morning decision allowing Texas to enforce their voter ID law, considered one of the strictest in the country, for the upcoming election. It is the fourth time the court has ruled on a case involving a state voting law in the past few weeks, and it is the third law the justices have upheld.
In addition to approving the Texas law, the Supreme Court allowed Ohio to reduce the number of days for early voting. The court also said that North Carolina could refuse same day voter registration. Curiously, the court blocked the Wisconsin voter ID law, which was even more lax in the forms of identification allowed than the Texas law.
It is worth noting that Wisconsin has been solidly in the Democratic camp in recent national elections, while North Carolina and Ohio are “swing” states. With its increasing Hispanic population, Texas may be the next red state to move into that swing state category. Could these rulings by one of the most political courts in history be an attempt to keep several swing states in the Republican column, while throwing a bone to the Democrats by allowing them to keep Wisconsin?
Voter ID laws became popular after the 2010 elections brought Republican control to legislatures and governor’s mansions in a number of states. The ACLU provides a list of states where voter ID/voter suppression laws have been passed or proposed since 2013. Those states include:
- Alabama
- Arkansas
- Arizona
- Florida
- Georgia
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Missouri
- Mississippi
- Montana
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Texas
- Virginia
- Wisconsin
The only way to win is cheat.
So said the theme song from the movie M*A*S*H. Indeed, that appears to be what the Republican party has decided. After routinely seeing their policies rejected by voters in most states, as soon as Republicans were able to get control of statehouses they went to work on what they like to call “protecting the integrity of the ballot.” They say they want to put an end to what they claim is “rampant” in person voter fraud. The problem with that is the integrity of the ballot is not, and has never been in jeopardy. In person voter fraud is almost non-existent.
The New Yorker published a piece by Jane Mayer in 2012, describing how the push for voter ID laws is largely the work of one man: Hans von Spakovsky, a laywer who worked for George W. Bush. Spakovsky most recently wrote a piece on the Heritage Foundation’s site, The Daily Signal, praising the Supreme Court’s decision on the Texas law. Spakovsky ridicules those who say that voter turnout is suppressed by voter ID laws.
Contrary to the claims made by the NAACP and other opponents in the Texas case (and believed by [Judge Nelva Gonzales] Ramos), 2013 voter turnout actually went up compared to 2011 levels. This held true throughout the state, including in heavily minority counties such as Webb and Fort Bend Counties.
But Richard Whittaker, writing in the Austin Chronicle, explains what Spakovsky ignores in his comment.
[I]t seems that any turnout boost – minor as it was – was a response to local issues. Of the 15 largest counties in the state, those with the highest turnout voted on major local issues.
Whittaker says that there were extensive problems on election day 2013, even for voters who showed up to vote, with ID.
Even those who made it to the ballot box with ID had problems. During early voting and on e-day, anecdotal evidence of problems flooded in, mostly via Twitter. Normally not the most reliable of resources, the buzz-feed was lent extra credibility when Texas Observer associate editor Forrest Wilder tweeted that the magazine’s controller Krissi Trumeter “was just told she couldn’t vote with a U.S. passport even though that’s an approved form of voter ID.” It took half an hour of arguing before she could exercise her democratic right.
The scenario that Whittaker describes will likely be played out many times, in Texas, and elsewhere, this election day, as people attempt to exercise their right to vote. One of the justifications behind the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Texas law was that to make changes at this time would confuse both voters and poll workers. But it appears that there is already plenty of confusion among poll workers, regarding which forms of ID are acceptable, and which are not.
The bottom line is that we are now seeing a very politicized Republican Supreme Court siding with Republican governors and legislatures in order to help Republicans win elections. That statement may sound harsh, but when the evidence shows that the voter fraud that Republicans say they are protecting us from does not exist, can there be any other interpretation?
[Image via ACLU]
Oooh, those dirty conservatives! Passing laws requiring identification to receive a ballot! The nerve!
Look, you have to have an ID to: Receive federal, state and local benefits; Get a bank account; Buy alcohol, tobacco, firearms, pornography, M-rated video games, R-rated movies or ammunition; Get a job; Rent or buy a house or car; Get on a plane; Get married; Adopt a pet; Rent a hotel room; Get a hunting or fishing license; Get a cell phone plan; Hold a protest in some jurisdictions; Pick up a prescription; and/or donate blood.And requiring one to elect the people who have the power to make or change those laws is suddenly a problem? That doesn’t make any sense.
There are a number of explicitly enumerated constitutional rights that have (be they “necessary and proper” or “Arbitrary and capricious”) limitations: You can’t shout “fire” in a crowded room, (First Amendment) nor can you bear arms into the halls of Congress, (Second Amendment) nor can your communications over the phone or Internet be unintercepted without a warrant, (Fourth Amendment) Nor can your property not be seized under civil forfeiture laws, (Fifth Amendment) Nor can you face your accuser or witnesses in a public trial if you’re accused of being a potential terrorist, (Sixth Amendment) Shall I go on?
The only “voters” intended to be “suppressed” in the case of voter identification are dead people, repeat voters, (same election, multiple ballots cast) and illegal immigrants. You know, the people who aren’t legally allowed to vote. And for that reason, I have no problem with a law requiring identification.
What makes even less sense is why is only an issue now after umpteen years?Right now after the first minority president and on the brink of the first female president, both of whom happen to be from the Democratic party. Why not when Bush was strong arming elections? All that flim flamming you did completely negated in three simple sentences.
If anything, you should be /FOR/ strengthening the integrity of the election process, because your argument merely strengthens mine because it’d be a sword that cuts both ways.
Oh, look at that: your argument (and, FYI, I voted for Kerry because I thought he was right, then Obama because I believed his bullshit, sad to say.) just got shot down in flames in a single sentence.
again how is any of these a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? How is it We did not need an ID for over 200 years why now. Funny how it’s no longer about voter fraud but bullshit excuses like needing an ID to see a movie? PROVE THAT.
Second Amendment what? Buying or carrying a gun is an EXPLICILY protected and guaranteed constitutional right, yet I have to show and/or have ID.
Guess what, chief: the Constitution is a limitation on government. It’s not an exclusive list of what you the citizen is allowed to do, merely what “Uncle Sam”, the Government is not.
Or if you want to play it like that, show me where in the constitution in effect 200 years ago (1814), exactly, it says white males who aren’t landowners have the right to vote at all. I’ll give you a hint: It took until 1868 (the 14th Amendment after the Civil War) to define what a citizen was for the purposes of voting and everything else. 1868+200=2068. 2068 > 2014. Matter of fact: 1868 > 1814. Before 1868, nobody but white, male landowners could vote. And how would your qualification be proven? Identifying yourself, showing your title to your land.
Having sufficiently proven my assertion: It’s funny how the leftists claim the bullshit excuse “There is no voter fraud” when people on the left have been caught doing just that. PROVE THERE ISN’T.
You must document each name change from birth. I was adopted and married 2 times. The state of origin demands a valid ID with your current address or you must come in person. Since my Indiana Driver license was not my address in Florida they would not mail copies of divorce papers. I was born in Michigan and they also wanted me to do the same for my original birth certificate. I had to fly to Indiana and to Michigan and present myself in person to get the paperwork I needed. Along with hotels, fees for copies of the documents (and waiting 3 days for them to go into the archives to find them) and transportation It came to over $2800.00. It was a nightmare and an expense I couldn’t afford. It depleted my savings. Even a state that gives a free ID won’t do it without all this documentation. I felt like I HAD fought a war when I finally recieved my Florida License. I actually cried when I walked out of the DMV with it in my hand.
And the problem that you hadn’t cared enough to maintain copies of your critical documents is my problem, why?
No, Guy: That’s your problem.
I guess I could have contacted me Miss Cleo and found out that Republicans were going to try to cheat and suppress the vote in 30 years. By the way come out from behind your hood and show your face coward. Don’t call me guy, you are blind if you can’t see that.
VOTER FRAUD IS PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT! There is NO need for voter IDs! Those so-called, “voter ID preventions” have been put in place for ONE PURPOSE; and that is to try to prevent elderly, disabled, students, minorities from voting! The Republicans/Tea party can’t win any other way, but to cheat! They have to employ all kinds of underhanded, dirty “tricks” to fool people into voting for them! They are nothing more than a bunch of thugs!!!!
You need an I.D to have a bank account, drive a car, buy liquor, etc. etc. so now we don’t want to just suppress the vote of the elderly, the handicapped the minorities and such we want to stop them from traveling, having money, drinking etc. etc. Do you see how asinine your statement is now? We have a number of ways for everyone to vote, absentee, by mail, in person, etc. etc. so how is it honestly, the only way we republicans can win? Also the LAWS that you speak of cannot be enacted on a partisan bases. Do us all a favor and get an education, Or are we stopping you from doing that as well?
Jason Is having a bank account, drive a car, buy liquor, etc. etc.a constitutionally protected RIGHT? NO. Voting IS So go f**k yourself Deny my rights prepare to suffer the consequences. i will be voting ARMED.
Wow, go f^*k myself how intelligent. So you will be voting ARMED!! Am I supposed to be impressed or threatened? I am neither. Again I ask that you get an education since Voting is Not a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT.
When the constitution was enacted it did not include a right to vote for the simple reason that the Founders didn’t think most people should vote. Voting laws, at the time, mostly favored white, male property-holders, and the rules varied sharply from state to state. But over the first half of the nineteenth century, the idea of popular democracy took root across the land. Property qualifications were universally abolished, and the franchise became the key marker of white male political equality. Subsequent activists sought to further expand the franchise, by barring discrimination on the basis of race (the 15th Amendment) and gender (the 19th) — establishing the norm that all citizens should have the right to vote.
But this norm is just a norm. There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination. A law requiring you to cut your hair short before voting, or dye it blue, or say “pretty please let me vote,” all might pass muster. And so might a voter ID requirement.
The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution’s protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting. As Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier has written, this “leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials.”
With that said, no one is denying you the right to vote. you are simply being asked to prove that you are an American citizen before you do.
God Bless America!
I am go ARMED as well … my left arm and right arm!
most country’s but the USA require voter ID and it works … the only one that will be upset is the dead voters and the repeat voters!
Um, voting is NOT a Constitutionally protected right! But you probably believe you have the right to not be offended, too.
Yes, you are, you are preventing ordinary Americans from getting a decent education. The extreme right are responsible for reducing funding to public schools, and setting up corporate schools whose true agenda is to indoctrinate young minds into their mindset, and prepare them solely for tasks relevant to their working lives. Your disingenuous arguments are just so much political spin, to hide the reality of their intentions, which is to place as many obstacles as possible, no matter how small, in the path of those whom you deem likely to vote against your hateful anti-human agenda of total corporate hegemony. And you won’t be taught that kind of vocabulary at one of your corporate slave preparatory centres.
In-Person Voter Fraud Is Virtually Nonexistent,
Federal Judge Rules Posted: 04/29/2014
WASHINGTON — Trying to crack down on
in-person voter fraud isn’t a strong enough justification for Wisconsin’s voter
ID law, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, because voter impersonation virtually
never occurs now and is unlikely to become a real problem in the future.
“The evidence at trial established that virtually no voter impersonation
occurs in Wisconsin,” Adelman ruled in Frank v. Walker. “The defendants could not point to a single instance
of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent
past
THAT’S RIGHT SCOTT
WALKER,,THE GOVERNER OF WISSCONSIN COULD NOT PRESENT EVEN ONE,,,NOT ONE CASE OF
VOTER FRAUD IN HIS OWN STATE
We
already have a voter I D it is called you voter registration card and your
signature affirming that it is you voting. Why do we need MORE added I D?? If you utter the words voter fraud,,then back up the claim of this crime that you
CLAIM is being committed. All you have to do is name 6 (six) cases of voter
fraud ,, that’s all just 6. I have been looking for years and can only account
for 5 names dates people and places of actual voter fraud.
THE VOTER
ID IS REPUBLICAN VOTER SUPRESION PURE AND SIMPLE
So, lets all vote the bastards Out! I will wait in the long line, in the rain/heat and vote Democrat! Because that’s what I am and I’m proud to be it!
I’m not declared to either party, but I have to say, you people are friggin’ whack jobs, and I may declare, just to be not associated in any way with your effed up thinking! The headline “The only way to win is cheat” describes the opponents to requiring ID, not the proponents! There is no valid reason why elderly, disabled, students, or minorities cannot or should not produce ID. You have to have ID to receive federal benefits, you receive a student ID when you’re in school, and I’ve never ever seen a sign at any state facility that says “We only give ID’s to white people”. The only “voters” who can’t produce ID’s are either people who shouldn’t be voting, like non citizens, or people who are not who they say they are. Last Presidential election produced thousands and thousands of cases of voter fraud uncovered, which were quickly covered back up by… you guessed it… the obvious benefactors of the fraud themselves. You people are doing all this crying because the Republicans are trying to stop YOUR voter fraud, not create it themselves! Claiming that requiring ID to vote is voter fraud, and that letting just anybody walk in and vote as whomever they claim to be is proper is just so, so utterly ridiculous.
I willl give you one valid reason THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW ONE.. There has NEVER till now did anyone NEED an ID to vote Why now? Because the GOP know that unless they DENY DEMOCRATS THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT they get voted out. Well asshole you have two options Ballot or bullet.
I don’t know what hillbilly area you’re from, but I’ve been voting for 29 years, and I’ve had to show ID EVERY time, until the last few years. The no ID issue is new, and it’s because you liberal fucktards are bussing in hundreds of thousands of illegals with the promise of giving them all of our money if they’ll vote for your criminals. Nobody is denying anybody of any right, you idiot, they only want to deny what is NOT your right, and that is voter fraud. Your name is definitely fitting, you are one of the sheeple. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, asshole.
Hello John Fraser, I have been voting for quite a few years more than you have and the only time I have had to show my ID was to get on the voting Rolls. I sign in at my poling place and this signature record has never ever been questioned once and there are people verifying my signature each and every time I vote. As for your fantasy of hundreds of thousands of illegals voting take you Fauxed up Noise Excrement and do everyone a favor and use that as your food supply from now on! The planet will thank you for not despoiling it!
This is an example of why. Not to mention the issues for transgender people.
This is even more annoying than those TSA agents who don’t know what their own company’s policies are when you’re trying to get through their morass.
Why the hell is it SO difficult for the people in charge to get this information to the people on the ground?!??