Voter ID Gets Another Day in Court
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: November 30, 2013
A federal trial in Milwaukee on Wisconsin’s 2011 voter ID law concluded
recently, and the verdict, when it comes, will help define the future
of the Voting Rights Act, which has been in question since the Supreme
Court gutted a core provision, Section 5, in June. This case could also set an important precedent for lawsuits recently filed against similar laws in Texas and North Carolina.
Related
-
Judge in Landmark Case Disavows Support for Voter ID (October 16, 2013)
The Wisconsin law,
which is now on hold, is among the strictest in the country. It
requires a voter to show poll workers government-issued photo
identification, like a driver’s license or passport.
The law’s challengers, which include the A.C.L.U., the League of United Latin American Citizens, the League of Young Voters and several private citizens,
sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. That section, which
survived the Supreme Court’s ruling, prohibits state and local
governments from imposing any “voting qualification or prerequisite to
voting” that has a racially discriminatory effect. The test is whether a
law causes minority voters to have “less opportunity than other members
of the electorate to participate in the political process.”
The plaintiffs presented substantial evidence that the Wisconsin statute had precisely that effect.
For example, a political scientist testified that it is likely that more
than 63,000 residents of Milwaukee do not have the required photo ID,
and that black residents are 40 percent more likely than whites not to
have such ID. In addition, one-third of those without a photo ID do not
have the underlying documents, like a birth certificate, needed to get
one. The court heard testimony from several such witnesses, including
Lorene Hutchins, a 93-year-old black woman who was born at home in Mississippi at a time when the state’s hospitals refused to accept black patients.
For those living in poverty or on a fixed income, who are
disproportionately people of color, even the $20 charge to get a copy of
a birth certificate can be unaffordable, and is in practice no
different from a poll tax. As is typical in voter ID cases, the state
presented virtually no evidence of voter fraud in defending the law. One
election official could not recall a single case of identity fraud in
his three decades of service to the state.
The law’s backers know their case is weak, and Republican legislators
are scrambling to revise the statute to permit indigent voters to take a
verbal oath and sign an affidavit that they cannot afford the paperwork
needed for a photo ID. But the revision would set no guidelines for
determining when someone is poor enough to qualify, and it would put
residents in the embarrassing position of having to declare their
poverty in public.
State voter ID laws may vary in their particulars, but their underlying
purpose is to prevent eligible voters from voting. That point was
reiterated when Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said recently that he had been wrong to uphold an Indiana voter-identification law in 2007.
Such laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression
rather than of fraud prevention,” Judge Posner wrote in a memoir, adding
that if he had been alert to the “trickery” of voter ID laws at the
time, the case would have come out differently. He may soon have the
chance for a do-over. Whichever way the trial court rules, the losing
side is sure to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, which includes Judge
Posner and his colleagues. Perhaps this time, they will not be fooled.
No comments:
Post a Comment