B.S. Meter: Voter ID Law Upheld Because It's Too Close to the November Election

Categories: Legal Battles

SupremeCourt.jpg
Kjetil Ree
For now, you still have to bring your ID to go vote. If you have one, of course.

On Saturday, the Supreme Court decided to let Texas enforce its strict two-year-old voter ID law, which a district court judge struck down as grossly discriminatory this month, but that ruling was temporarily put on hold by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Got that? No?

Then let us 'splain: You have to bring what the law calls proper identification -- assuming you have some -- to cast your vote this election because otherwise the Supreme Court says you might be confused and just show up to vote the way Texans have always done. You see, apparently it's better to let a new discriminatory law possibly disenfranchise a large number of voters -- 600,000 by one count -- than lay the heavy burden on voters who mistakenly bring identification to the polls when they needn't have bothered.

Whew! Thank you, Supreme Court, for clearing that up.

Of course, the Supreme Court didn't actually say this, since it didn't give a reason for its decision, but the general consensus seems to be that justices figured it would be confusing to make a major overhaul to the law so close to the election. And if you aren't buying that, you're not alone.

See also: Dallasites without Votes IDs Are Generally Poor, Non-White, and -- Surprise! -- Democrats

"The thinking was that issuing a decision this close to the election would disrupt the status quo in a way that would be a detriment to the state," says Lynne Rambo, a professor of constitutional law at Texas A&M law school. "It's not a theory I buy."

It's not a theory at least three justices buy, either. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor each dissented the decision. And ample evidence backs up the district court's original argument that requiring an ID at the polls would disproportionately advantage white, wealthier voters: The NAACP also notes that 25 percent of African Americans and 16 percent of Hispanics nationwide don't have a valid government-issued ID.

"The status quo they're trying to maintain is that SB 14 [requiring voter IDs in Texas] went into effect at the beginning of 2012. Are there people that are going to be hurt by holding out the implementation of SB 14? It's extremely hard to imagine that there are," Rambo says.

"Theoretically those who enacted the law, they're claiming that there's some kind of harm that they would suffer by not having this law. They claim that it is necessary to prevent voter fraud," she says. "It's difficult for me because the district court found that there had been only two cases of voter fraud in 10 years. So it's hard for me to take seriously that claim."

Rambo estimates that the dispute over the law will be continued after the midterms. "There are other things you have to consider. For one, the state presumably has to train voting officials how to recognize voter IDs," she says, pointing out the validity of arguing that changes to election procedure could be confusing.

"From a legal standpoint it's not completely outrageous," Rambo points out, though, that the legal argument does not necessarily outweigh the ethical argument. "It's wrong, but it's not wholly without basis -- let's put it that way."

My Voice Nation Help
21 comments
holmantx
holmantx topcommenter

You don't need an ID to vote.  Just go vote.  Make up anybody you want to.  It's the Honor system.

If it's close in the elections you care about then you have time to go down and prove, or phony up, who you are.

But seriously, if you continue to cling to the notion that you don't have to carry an ID in the 21st century and in a state that has millions of ineligible, if not illegal, voters then cry me a river.  I don't trust either party but that's not the point.

Voter integrity, or the perception of it, is the point.  Less people vote if they think their vote does not count.  Justice Stevens wrote at length about it in his majority decision.  

It is elementary common sense.  To vote in this country you need to prove you are are eligible to vote.  

Both sides have cheated in the past and we are talking about politics so yeah, ID up people if you want to vote.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

The push by Republicans for voter ID has nothing to do with fraudulent voting.


“Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it’s done. First pro-life legislation – abortion facility regulations – in 22 years, done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”--- Republican House Majority Leader from Pennsylvania, Mike Turzai. 


On the other hand, there's no excuse for not having required ID if that's what it takes to insure that you can vote.  

dingo
dingo

"It's difficult for me because the district court found that there had been only two cases of voter fraud in 10years. So it's hard for me to take seriously that claim." 

----------

'In 2008, a 68-page Milwaukee Police Department report confirmed that in the last presidential election, claims that thousands “more ballots [were] cast than voters recorded were found to be true.” The report found that there had been an organized effort by political operatives from out of state to swing the election.

.

.

A statewide watchdog group called Minnesota Majority scoured the 2008 election results and identified 1,099 felons who had voted illegally. Even though violators must essentially admit their crime before they can be charged, prosecutors managed to secure 177 convictions of fraud by felons.'

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/390139/braced-voter-fraud-colorado-john-fund


Edgar
Edgar

Sure, SB14 was political.  In the short term, it helps Republicans and hurts Democrats.  No one can dispute that with a straight face.


But, stepping away from the soapbox, is it really a lot to ask eligible voters to secure and present a valid ID in order to exercise the privilege to vote?  Of course it's not.  That's why this law will be upheld.


Sure, there will be sob stories about the proverbial elderly impoverished widow who couldn't get to the DMV.  But there are ways to protect her rights with the law in place.

OxbowIncident
OxbowIncident

Which is more powerful voting or guns? 


Either way, you should have an ID with both.

TheRuddSki
TheRuddSki topcommenter

Meh. Provisional ballot.

life is so complicated, first they force you at the point of a gun to buy health insurance, force you to provide ID for just about anything, now you have to show ID to vote.

Can't the gov't just force us to do everything except show ID to vote? After all, Nov 4 for Democrats is a sacred day - El día de los muertos.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

It's more likely that the 5th circuit saw the timing of the decision from a shiny new Obama appointee just weeks before the election as dirty pool, and weren't going to let her screw up this election before they got a chance to benchslap her.


Face it -- the SCOTUS couldn't even get 4 on the dissent, and 2 of the 3 are also Obama appointees.  This wasn't even close.  The courts have been clearly political, and the fact that it's all Obama appointees that are outliers on this frankly points to him being really shitty about appointing actual legal minds, and instead is trying to pack the courts with partisans.


We don't get shit like this from Clinton appointees.  I have lots of problems with his policies, but Clinton's legal appointees isn't part of that.

Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@holmantx Wrong.  Voting is a right, not a privilege.  Republicans should have to prove to an American citizen that he/she does NOT have a right to vote.  American citizens shouldn't have to prove to Republicans that they HAVE the right to vote.

Montemalone
Montemalone topcommenter

@dingo Even though the author failed (hey, status quo for the Observer) to cite the instances, I inferred this was in reference to Texas, since the ruling affects Texas.


Myrna.Minkoff-Katz
Myrna.Minkoff-Katz topcommenter

@Edgar It's encouraging to see Chris Matthews every night on Hardball keeping a high profile on Republican attempts to suppress the Democratic vote .  Too many Democrats need a shove to get riled up enough to get that ID and get out and vote, no matter the obstacles.

OxbowIncident
OxbowIncident

Hey, what do you call a group of armed lesbians?


Militia Ethridge.

everlastingphelps
everlastingphelps topcommenter

@Montemalone @everlastingphelps @Myrna.Minkoff-Katz @holmantx That is a stupid argument made by stupid people, and has been roundly rejected by the SCOTUS.


DC v Heller: 

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...