Requiring a photo ID is an extraordinarily small
price to pay for maintaining some electoral
integrity. Even Jimmy Carter realizes that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Supremes Uphold Election Integrity
Government Michael M. Bates
May 2, 2008
Heaven knows Jimmy Carter is wrong much of the time. Yet even the
former president has his better days. One of them occurred during his
service as co-chair of the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform.
Carter joined in the commission=92s recommendation for a voter photo
identification requirement.
On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana=92s law mandating voters to
produce a photo ID. Reaction to this commonsensical ruling was
predictable.
Barack Obama called the decision wrong and charged it would hurt
minorities, the elderly, the poor, and blustering retired ministers
moving into multimillion-dollar mansions in Tinley Park gated
communities. OK, so I made that last part up.
Hillary Clinton said she had questions about the decision, although
she didn=92t specify what those questions are. Additionally, she
expressed hope the ruling wouldn=92t suppress or deter voter turnout.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) moaned,
=93The Indiana law and others like it are roadblocks to democracy -
these laws place an unnecessary burden on elderly and low-income
voters, not to mention other voters of disparate racial and ethnic
backgrounds, among others.=94
I=92d think voter fraud is a serious roadblock to democracy.
Of course, I=92m not nearly as smart as Reid, who recently stated that
Federal income taxes are voluntary. You can bet I=92ll save that little
factoid for next April when I send in my I=92m-not-volunteering-this-
year note to the IRS instead of the customary check.
For their part, Republicans seemed satisfied with the court=92s
decision. They can afford to be content; unlike their opponents they
don=92t boast an institutional reliance on the graveyard vote in
squeaker elections.
Americans routinely need photo IDs to get on an airplane, to enter
many public buildings, to get a library card, to cash a check, to get
admitted to a hospital. So how is it a singular burden for the
elderly, minorities and the poor to possess a photo ID for purposes of
voting? Do they never get on an airplane, enter public buildings,
etc.?
The Indiana law was challenged by the state Democratic Party and other
liberal outfits that have shown themselves oh-so-dedicated to
untainted elections over the years. Filing an amicus brief challenging
the voter identification requirement was the League of Women Voters of
Indiana and Indianapolis. The brief included eight examples of people
who pur****tedly had been harmed by the photo ID law.
The first case cited was of an Indiana senior who tried to vote and
was told at the polls her Florida driver=92s license wasn=92t a valid
identification. She was offered the right to vote provisionally, but
refused.
After an estimated four hours of going to two Bureau of Motor Vehicles
facilities as well as a Social Security office, she was issued a state
ID: =93Our persistent and persevering citizen was welcomed back to the
precinct with a standing ovation=94 and allowed to vote.
That=92s quite a story, and one that dramatically illustrates a
potential problem with the voter ID law.
But it wasn=92t the whole story. That the woman came to the polls with a
Florida driver=92s license was a clue. As re****ted by the Auburn,
Indiana Evening Star, our persistent and persevering citizen was
registered to vote in two states, Indiana and Florida, which is
illegal. A possible reason she may have registered both places was to
qualify for a homestead exemption on her property in both states.
Indiana issues photo IDs for free to individuals who don=92t have a
driver=92s license and can=92t afford the $13 fee ($10 for the disabled or
people 65 or older). The state also permits provisional voting in
which voters cast a ballot and then have ten days to appear at their
local courthouse and prove their identity.
There=92s now apprehension in certain circles that the Supreme Court=92s
Indiana decision will encourage other states to enact similar voter ID
laws. Interestingly, in these same circles arguments are often
advanced with the assertion that many other countries in the world do
such and such so we should too. We should emulate other nations, they
contend.
The final re****t of the Commission on Federal Election Reform observed
that,
=93In its deliberations, our Commission considered the best practices of
election systems around the world...Voters in nearly 100 democracies
use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their
rights.=94
Requiring a photo ID is an extraordinarily small price to pay for
maintaining some electoral integrity. Even Jimmy Carter realizes that.
~~~~~~~~
Michael M. Bates has written a weekly column of opinion - or nonsense,
depending on your viewpoint - since 1985 for the (southwest suburban
Chicago) Re****ter Newspapers. Additionally, his articles have appeared
in the Congressional Record, the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-
Times and the Mensa Journal. He has been a guest on Milt Rosenberg's
program on WGN Radio Chicago, the Bruce Elliott show on Baltimore's
WBAL, the Jim Sumpter show on the USA Radio Network and the New Media
Journal's NMJ Radio Show. As a lad, Mike distributed Goldwater
campaign literature and since then has steadily moved further to the
Right. He is the author of "Right Angles and Other Obstinate Truths."
In 2007, he won an Illinois Press Association award for Original
Column.
|
