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.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Whats so hard about presenting legal documentation so their wont be voter fraud?? If you do not have anything to hide then you should comply with the law, or shouldnt we? Please explain why this is so hard to follow
Let's pretend
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.
ANY extra impediment to voting is going to drive down legitimate votes more than it does illegitimate ones. If someone is motivated to cheat, it's relatively easy to procure a phony ID. Any college kid can tell you that, and show you where to get a phony driver's license.
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?
Good points about the absentee voters and the fact most are republicans. Just how does an absentee voter show ID?
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.
Such has been so common during this primary season. Obama running against both Dems and Republicans - supposedly within his own party!!
I agree that the Indiana law is basically aimed against the poor and the black and the marginalized.
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.
OK, what's the counter move? If Republicans keep pushing through voter ID laws in states they control, what can Dems do to push through laws favorable to them in other states?
How about we require everyone voting to have a soul?
On precinct caucus night I registered college students who showed college ID and a secondary item (like a document from the college or a current utility bill) that included their name and address to prove they lived in the precinct. We now have same day registeration so I expect to do the same in November.
photo ids are not required at corner stores and bodegas. they'll even cash your check for you for a "small fee"
Sorry,,,, The prograssive lib Spin is wrong.....In order to purchase a beer or pack of cigarrettes Photo ids are needed...Social Security, unemployment checks.......Sorry ,no one is buying it....HELL , EVERY HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT,EVERYCOLLEGE STUDENT , EVERY PUBLIC EMPLIOYEE, EVERY UTILITY EMPLOYEE HAS TO HAVE A PHOTO ID...
I am an AA with an MBA and I have several family members who do not have valid photo I.D. It's called being poor and not having a car--so why get a license. Its about being stopped for even minor traffic violations, or having child support "issues" and getting a fine that you can't afford to pay and then having your license held or revoked as a result. I am amazed at the level of trepidation that surrounds interaction with local government offices and banks within my own family. In general, its like some black folks want to stay beneath the radar for fear of being rounded up and put back on plantations. No joke!
Couldn't agree more. This was the last of what I think were a series of anti-young people laws being pushed through. (Yes I think there are also anti-old people and anti-minority laws, but I think this one was aimed at young people.)
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.
You sound like you still have hope in the voting process in the U.S.... AS WELL AS the Supreme Court... being in some way fair to American Citizens.
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!
She won Indiana by 1.4% and she is a republican.
Are you related to George?
I just don't get it. How does anyone in todays world get by without a photo ID? In Indiana a State Photo ID costs thirteen dollars, if you can afford it. If not it's free. Besides which the math doesn't work out to be that great a problem. Marion county has a population of almost a millon folks. Assuming a 50/50 split of Rep to Dems in the county a 2% drop in voter turn out for the Dems equals 900 people in the whole county who may have not turned out because they did not have an ID. But that also assumes all 900,000 people are of voting age and are registered to vote. Dig a little deeper and you get 530K between the ages of 18 and 64, i.e. working age, Take a 5.1 % unemployment coupled with the fact that anyone employed must have a photo ID to get a job, the 50/50 party split and the 2% drop in voter turn out and we are talking about 270 people out of almost a million folks who the law may have effected. Remember anyone over 65 needs an ID to get their social security or Medicaid. Now, 36% of the voting population turned out to vote, so we reduce the 270 by a third to get 90 people total out of the almost 1,000,000. That's a lot of noise and hoopla over 90 people too afraid to go get their ID to vote.
I just don't get it. How does anyone in todays world get by without a photo ID?
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.
The irony is as stated - no documented case ever of voter ID fraud.
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
What fraud was committed? Crossover voting is not illegal.
When all else fails make it up right?
It's the Republican Way! Lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, threaten and subdue.
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?
that sounds about right to me!
Most Voter Fraud probably occurs through absentee ballots. Of course, no photo ID is required for those.
I wonder if there are any organizations looking to bolster the % of such voters having/obtaining such IDs?
And don't forget the elderly nuns (and some students).
Good question, lisakaz2. Mr. Stephanopoulos, are you aware of any group that would round up volunteers to help voters obtain the IDs they need in order to be able to cast their ballots? This sounds like a worthwhile project for MoveOn or Free Press or PFAW or even the ACLU. It would have to be a group with impeccable credentials.
Dorothea Brande was an American writer and editor, well known...
Last night, CNN's Campbell Brown criticized President-elect...
Al Franken's campaign announced on Wednesday that, for the first time since the Minnesota...
A standup comic once joked about his inner monologue...
I recently wrote an article entitled "Deepak Chopra on Mumbai:...
Arianna appeared on the "Daily Show"...
DALLAS — Of all the cajoling, snide remarks and...
President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden met in Philadelphia...
Jon Stewart declared MSNBC the new Fox News Monday night on "The Daily Show,"...
Now that Americans have footed the bill for more than a...
Who says these are bleak times? On...
via News Lite When The Beatles wrote 'I Am the Walrus'...
On Monday, Arianna wrote a piece about the terrifying state of America's economy. So, just like we did...
Loading comments…
Posted May 11, 2008 | 06:31 PM (EST)