Postman on Politics
Chief political reporter David Postman explores state, regional and national politics.
April 28, 2008 10:09 AM
Posted by David Postman
The U.S. Supreme Court today said states can require voters to show photo identification before casting a ballot. In a split ruling, the court upheld a Republican-sponsored law in Indiana. Democrats and voting rights groups challenged the law, saying it would discourage voting by poor, elderly and minority voters.
Election law expert Rick Hasen says the decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election board is a “significant win for those who support stricter voter identification laws, even if they support such laws for partisan purposes.” (Hasen filed a pro bono brief in support of the challenge to the law.)
He writes at his electionlawblog:
It will encourage further litigation, because it relegates challenges to laws imposing onerous burdens on a small group of voters to "as applied" challenges, but those challenges will be difficult to win. The lack of a majority opinion, moreover, injects some uncertainty into the appropriate standard for reviewing other challenges to onerous election laws.
Washington state plays into today’s decision in two ways. In the controlling opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, it is clear that to defend a voter ID law there doesn’t need to be very strong evidence of past voter fraud. The Indiana law was designed to prevent in-person, voter impersonation fraud at polling places. But as Stevens himself made clear:
The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists, that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years, and that Indiana’s own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor —though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud—demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.
And what is the evidence of the “occasional examples” that surfaced in recent years? As it says in footnote 12 today:
While the brief indicates that the record evidence of in-person fraud was overstated because much of the fraud was actually absentee ballot fraud or voter registration fraud, there remain scattered instances of in-person voter fraud. For example, after a hotly contested gubernatorial election in 2004, Washington conducted an investigation of voter fraud and uncovered 19 “ghost voters.” Borders v. King Cty., No. 05-2-00027-3 (Super. Ct. Chelan Cty., Wash., June 6, 2005) (verbatim report of unpublished oral decision), 4 Election L. J. 418, 423 (2005). After a partial investigation of the ghost voting, one voter was confirmed to have committed in-person voting fraud.
The evidence cited in the footnote for the one case is a story from the P-I.
There’s a local angle with more far-reaching effect, though. Today’s case follows a line of reasoning the court used recently in its recent decision upholding Washington’s top-two primary law. The court is making it clear that to successfully challenge an election law, petitioners have to be able to show actual damage. It’s not enough to say that a law appears to be unconstitutional or that it could disenfranchise voters - as the claim in today’s case - or political parties, as claimed in the top-two case. What the court calls facial challenges are not enough. The petitioners have to show constitutional violations as the law was applied.
Stevens wrote today that petitioners “bear a heavy burden of persuasion in seeking to invalidate (the law) in all its applications.”
This Court’s reasoning in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, 552 U. S., applies with added force here. Petitioners argue that Indiana’s interests do not justify the burden imposed on voters who cannot afford or obtain a birth certificate and who must make a second trip to the circuit court clerk’s office, but it is not possible to quantify, based on the evidence in the record, either that burden’s magnitude or the portion of the burden that is fully justified. A facial challenge must fail where the statute has a “ ‘plainly legitimate sweep.’ ”
While the lawsuit that led to today’s decision had partisan roots, the mix of opinions in the split decision today could mute charges that the court issued a political decision. Stevens is generally considered among the court’s liberals.
Washington's voter identification law requires proof of i.d., but not a photo. Republican lawmakers have pushed for tougher requirements.
Olympia-based Evergreen Freedom Foundation filed an amicus brief in support of Indiana's law. EFF attorney Jonathan Bechtle issued a statement this morning that said:
This is a victory for everyone who cares about protecting the ballot box. I am thrilled that the Court upheld Indiana’s law. Now every other state, including Washington, will be able to confidently enact security measures like requiring voter ID and proof of citizenship to ensure only legal voters can vote.
In fact, the Court ruled in Indiana’s favor precisely because, as Justice Stephens wrote, ‘the application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.’
For another conservative view, read Michelle Malkin who declares it good news and says:
The race-mongers and open borders lobby will be in an uproar.
Liberals worry, though, about what the decision means for upcoming elections. At DailyKos, a writer says the ruling will open “the door to all sorts of harassment for minority, elderly and other traditionally Democratic voters.”
Bottom line, friends? The Great Disenfranchisement of 2008 has begun. These laws are not neutral, are not innocent, but are an attempt by Republican legislators to prevent traditionally Democratic voters from casting their ballots. We need to do whatever it takes to help all qualified voters obtain whatever records they need so that they can vote this November; we cannot let them win.
Posted by TheTruth
11:47 AM, Apr 28, 2008
"These laws are not neutral, are not innocent, but are an attempt by Republican legislators to prevent traditionally Democratic voters from casting their ballots."
If by "traditional" the author means illegal non-citizens, felons and others barred from voting, he (or she) is right. Given the recent fraudlent activity of the Democrat group ACORN in fraudulent registrations, I am not surprised the nut-roots folks are angry. Lawbreakers are usually upset whent eh law catches up with them. Why should Democrat lawbreakers be any different?
Posted by Bothsides
12:01 PM, Apr 28, 2008
"Democrats and voting rights groups challenged the law, saying it would discourage voting by poor, elderly and minority voters"
Wrong, it would discourage votes from illegal's.
Posted by DefenderofVotes
12:17 PM, Apr 28, 2008
Neo-Cons are poison and must be stopped and purged from the system.
Posted by Bob-o
12:50 PM, Apr 28, 2008
Well, if the law disenfranchises those eligable to vote that do not have proper identification, then its working just as it should. Those people need to get the proper identification, because a polling worker cannot determine if a person coming to vote is just an eligable voter who didn't get a state ID, or someone voting in place of someone else.
Sorta like these Seattle Times captchas keep disenfranchising readers, who despite typing in exactly what the graphic shows (as much as a human can discern from the sometimes difficult to read mess).
Posted by Gene
3:22 PM, Apr 28, 2008
. . .."an attempt by Republican legislators to prevent traditionally Democratic voters from casting their ballots. We need to do whatever it takes to help all qualified voters obtain whatever records they need so that they can vote this November; we cannot let them win."
Those are the last 2 sentences of the article. Repulican voters are identifiable! Democrats need non identifiable voters to win? I don't thnk so.
Posted by Josef
4:58 PM, Apr 28, 2008
This Republican (I have given at least $150 to Dino Rossi, $120.08 to Rob McKenna and $110 to the WSRP) agrees w/ the DailyKos on this: "We need to do whatever it takes to help all qualified voters obtain whatever records they need so that they can vote this November"
Very right, even though the rest of the rhetoric is out there. Once upon a time there was a rallying cry called Marummy Country where, "# of votes = # of legal voters = # of legal votes". Maybe time to dust that off again?
Let's also hope that King County Elections will be fair now and understands that this is the election that their future hangs on...
Posted by R. Travaille
9:19 AM, Apr 29, 2008
I'm still trying to figure out Why the Democrats in Olympia and well anyplace can Justify Not Wanting Proof Of Citizenship in order to Vote here!! Yes the Republicans in Olympia have tried to get this passed, but last time I think that the Democrats said that a Utility bill was sufficent!! Also don't forget that the Sec of State cannot, I repeat Cannot verify a persons citenzship upon registeration, only that it is a Real Person not Necessarlily a Citizen of the United States!!
Posted by Xad
10:51 AM, Apr 29, 2008
What are you hateful conservatives going to scream about when you go down tot total defeat in November REGARDLESS of your manipulations to fix the elections for Republicans?
The Great American Public is finally on to you.
Keep shrieking: it will comfort you!
Posted by HPS
11:38 AM, Apr 29, 2008
@Bob-o: Some people cannot afford to get proper ID. The Indiana law requires CURRENT goverment ID. So, the grandma that doesn't drive anymore, whose license expired 10 years ago would not be able to vote. The material needed to get proper ID can also be expensive (certified birth certificates) and difficult to obtain (grandma, who doesn't drive, is going to have a hard time traveling long distances in Indiana to get the necessary documents). These are the folks that the Democrats are worried about.
The is very, very little evidence of illegal aliens voting. In the only case I know of, the immigrant thought that they were a citizen because his parents had naturalized. The actaul voter fraud that does occur, which is still very little, is perpetuated by U.S. Citizens. A government issued ID is not going to stop that.
Posted by JimD
1:08 PM, Apr 29, 2008
Our country has the unfortunate history of power-holders disenfranchising the opposition at the polls with various manipulations, including the infamous intelligence tests and such used in the old south to disqualify blacks, for example.
While I think the issue of proper ID can be easily solved (even for elderly voters who can obtain a non-driving ID license at any drivers license office), I also appreciate the need to err on the side of inclusion, given this past (and present, if some had their way).
IF the choice were between improperly disqualifying a small number who otherwise have the legal right to vote except for lack of proper ID (elderly for example), or qualifying a small number who don't (illegals or felons), insuring the constitutional right of the former is obviously more important than disqualifying the latter. In the inherently imperfect implementation of this representative democracy, better we swallow a few who aren't qualified, than take away the right of those who are.
Of course, there are those who will claim this viewpoint is motivated by the nefarious agenda of influencing poll results with illegals who'd supposedly vote democratic. But perhaps they fail to appreciate that voting is a RIGHT, not a privilege like a driver's license, and simply deserves the higher priority when deciding this issue.
Posted by Bothsides
8:03 AM, May 01, 2008
20 Million illegal aliens is hardly a small number, in this state, all you need to do is apply for a drivers license and you can be registered to vote, no citizenship required, why does a non-citizen get to cancel my vote as a LEGAL citizen.
Posted by votenic
7:24 PM, May 01, 2008
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
Come Enter In The votenic T-Shirt Sweepstakes!
votenic, The Only Poll That Matters.
Posted by JimD
8:09 AM, May 02, 2008
No non-citizens will be cancelling your vote anymore than anyone one else will "cancel" your vote. All votes count.
20 million is wild speculation - even more so if you seriously believe more than a tiny fraction are going to try to vote. But your comment seems more concerned with winning a particular election result than upholding the rights of qualified citizens to vote, which gives credence to the DailyKos' observation that the motivation is to "prevent traditionally Democratic voters from casting their ballots."
May 1, 08 - 09:38 AM
Another candidate for SPI
Apr 30, 08 - 03:45 PM
UPDATED: Demo state lawmaker charged with assault
Apr 30, 08 - 11:42 AM
Suicide initiative leads spending
Apr 29, 08 - 02:52 PM
Seattle pair finalists in Obama contest
Apr 28, 08 - 01:56 PM
Rep. McDermott pays $1 million to end legal fight