A Supreme Court Reversal: Abandoning the Rights of Voters
By ADAM COHEN
New York Times
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a hugely important case about voter ID laws. Asking for identification at the polls may sound reasonable, but an Indiana law disenfranchises large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters. If the court upholds the law, as appears likely, it will be a sad new chapter in its abandonment of voters, a group whose rights it once defended vigorously.
As long as there have been elections, there have been attempts to keep eligible people from voting. States and localities adopted poll taxes, literacy tests, “white primaries,” “malapportionment” — drawing district lines to give a small number of rural voters the same representation as a large number of urban voters — and restrictions on student voting. In recent decades, the Supreme Court has rejected all of them.
The court understood that the Constitution guaranteed a robust form of democracy and saw its clear value for the nation. During the tumultuous late-1960s, Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that most of the country’s problems could be solved through the political process if everyone “has the opportunity to participate on equal terms with everyone else and can share in electing representatives who will be representative of the entire community and not of some special interest.”
In recent years, however, with a conservative majority in place, the court has become increasingly hostile to voters. During the oral arguments in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor showed disdain for voters who had trouble with Florida’s disastrous punch-card ballots. After insisting that the directions “couldn’t be clearer,” she suggested that the court ignore the ballots of voters who had failed to master the intricacies. That is precisely what it did, by a 5-4 vote.
(Continued here.)
New York Times
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a hugely important case about voter ID laws. Asking for identification at the polls may sound reasonable, but an Indiana law disenfranchises large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters. If the court upholds the law, as appears likely, it will be a sad new chapter in its abandonment of voters, a group whose rights it once defended vigorously.
As long as there have been elections, there have been attempts to keep eligible people from voting. States and localities adopted poll taxes, literacy tests, “white primaries,” “malapportionment” — drawing district lines to give a small number of rural voters the same representation as a large number of urban voters — and restrictions on student voting. In recent decades, the Supreme Court has rejected all of them.
The court understood that the Constitution guaranteed a robust form of democracy and saw its clear value for the nation. During the tumultuous late-1960s, Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that most of the country’s problems could be solved through the political process if everyone “has the opportunity to participate on equal terms with everyone else and can share in electing representatives who will be representative of the entire community and not of some special interest.”
In recent years, however, with a conservative majority in place, the court has become increasingly hostile to voters. During the oral arguments in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor showed disdain for voters who had trouble with Florida’s disastrous punch-card ballots. After insisting that the directions “couldn’t be clearer,” she suggested that the court ignore the ballots of voters who had failed to master the intricacies. That is precisely what it did, by a 5-4 vote.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
As an election judge, I have to agree with Judge O'Connor's position about mastering the intracacies of voting. The problem is not the court or showing an ID at the polling place, it's that too many citizens only take the time to vote once every four years during a presidential election. They don't vote in school board elections or city council elections or county commissioner elections or in primary elections, so that when they get to the one general election every four years, they don't know which polling place to go to or recall how to fill out the ballot. I know this because I am election judge and I can give story after story about how people pay attention to voting once every four years - they go to the wrong polling place because they didn't read their mail indicating their new polling place or bother to vote in the primary as a 'practice' vote, they get angry that they have to re-register since they last voted four years ago so their name is dropped from the rolls, I could go on and on and on. One voter accused me of preventing him from voting because I told him he was in the wrong polling place. I asked him did he vote in the primary? No, he didn't. Did he read his county mail regarding his polling place. No, he didn't. But, he saw a 'vote here' sign on the sidewalk and since he lived a few blocks away figured the closest polling place to his house was where he was supposed to vote when, in fact, due to his residence, was supposed to vote at the church across the highway and not the community center. People like that don't take their right to vote seriously and then accuse me of disenfranchising them when they don't bother to educate themselves about the process by voting in other elections besides presidential elections. Sorry to say, I have no sympathy for that person. You can give a man a right, but you can't force him to exercise that right.
Further, it is of absolute importance that we ensure people vote once and only once. In Minnesota, if you register to vote and your name is on the rolls, you don't have to show your ID to vote. But, you do have to show your ID to register or have a registered voter who lives in the precinct vouch for you. So, in Minnesota you have to prove you are who you say you are to register, so is it really that big of a leap to do the same when you go to sign your name and vote? Not really.
IN everyday life we show our ID all the time - when we use a credit card, when we deposit money at the bank, when we buy alcohol, when we go in to a bar. I am pretty sure that people are not saying the government is preventing them from buying booze if they have to show their ID at the liquor store.
In fact, the loose registration laws are what are more troublesome, at least as far as I am concerned being an election judge in Minnesota. The same-day-registration is so open to fraud that I am positive I have organized efforts in my precinct in St Paul (ward 1 precinct 2 at Dunning Rec Center) by students at Concordia University to bring in young peopel from Wisconsin and Iowa in order to vote in US Congress elections in Minnesota. A group of about 6 or 7 college-aged students showed up several times at the polling place with no ID of any kind asking about how the voucher process works in 2006. Finally, they came to the polling place with someone who had just registered before they arrived. This person then vouched for the group (you were allowed to vouch for up to 15 people in 2006, now you can only vouch for 3 persons). What kind of college student does not have any ID of any kind? No driver's license. Not listed on the student roster provided by the college. No student ID. No fee statement. No utility bill in their name. Shame on us for same-day-registration.
We should be more vigilant about voter fraud because voter fraud, just like counterfeit money devaluing real money, devalues legitimate votes. This disenfranchises those legitimate voters who followed the rules, got registered, voted once and went home thinking their vote counts the same as all the rest.
This piece is just more scare tactics from the left. Showing an ID to vote does not disenfranchise voters, but discourages those who wish to attempt in fraudulent voting activities and we should all applaud efforts to make sure that every vote cast counts the same. if you are a legitimate voter and follow the rules, there is nothing to fear from showing you ID to vote. Proving you are who you say you are is the only way to ensure that elections remain fair. If you have nefarious intentions, then by all means moan about showing your ID to vote!
Post a Comment
<< Home