The Volokh Conspiracy

Indiana Voting Law Upheld:

Today, in Crawford v. Marion County Voting Board, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana's new photo ID requirement for voting. Writing for himself and Judge Diane Sykes, Judge Richard Posner held that the photo ID requirment did not impose an undue burden on the right to vote, even though the law would deter some individuals from voting, and even assuming that the law would have disproportionate effects on voters of one party.

In ananlyzing the statute, Posner rejected strict scrutiny, observing:

The Indiana law is not like a poll tax, where on one side is the right to vote and on the other side the state’s interest in defraying the cost of elections or in limiting the franchise to people who really care about voting or in excluding poor people or in discouraging people who are black. The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes — dilution being recognized to be an impairment of the right to vote.
According to the majority, the law represents a reasonable regulation designed to balance the right to vote with the state's interest in reducing the likelihood of voter fraud.

Judge Evans dissented:

Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic. We should subject this law to strict scrutiny—or at least, in the wake of Burdick v. Takushi, . . . something akin to “strict scrutiny light” — and strike it down as an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote.

UPDATE: I neglected to add that both opinions are short and worth reading in full. This was a high-powered panel addressing an important issue.

I've also fixed the link above, or try this one.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. More on Indiana Voter ID Decision:
  2. Indiana Voting Law Upheld:
Federal Dog:
"Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."


Fraudulent voters?
1.4.2007 3:42pm
andy (mail) (www):
Seems like a reasonable restriction to me. I have to show my ID before buying a beer...is it to much to ask for an ID before voting in an election? And, buying a beer is much more important to my personal enjoyment and freedom than is voting.
1.4.2007 3:44pm
Bpbatista (mail):
The dissent is absolutely correct: The law was intended to discourage turnout by certain folks that skews Democratic, i.e., fraudulent voters.
1.4.2007 3:52pm
The General:
This law does in fact discourage an important segment of Democratic voters...you know the ones I'm talking about...the ones who voted Republican until the day they died and voted for the Democrats ever since. I can understand why they'd be upset.

In any event, if you read that passage from the dissent and substitute "Democratic" with "Republican," most Democrats would change their tune about the law.
1.4.2007 4:00pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
N.b. that all three judges on the panel are smart, respected jurists, and that reading each opinion in its entirety (rather than a quoted snippet) might be a good idea.
1.4.2007 4:00pm
LT (mail):
I'll echo Anderson here. This case presents tough issues that, as the opinions demonstrate, have never been squarely addressed by the Supreme Court (the recent per curiam in Purcell notwithstanding). Judges Posner and Evans are two of the finest writers on the federal bench today, and both of their mercifully succinct opinions deserve a full read.
1.4.2007 4:09pm
Jeff Shultz (mail):
I'd have to see a lot more of that opinion to believe that, after reading the snippet, Judge Evans is smart.
1.4.2007 4:09pm
Jeff Shultz (mail):
Oh, btw, the link doesn't work anymore.
1.4.2007 4:10pm
BruceM (mail) (www):
Yes, both Posner and Evans are excellent legal scholars. I think I come down on Posner's side on this one. Just because there may be a disparate impact on voters who lean Democratic (and that's not proven although I'll accept it for the purpose of argument here) doesn't mean it is the overt intent of the statute. And even if the overt intent is to dissuade democratic voters, showing an ID to vote is simply not unreasonable. Do you have to show an ID to collect welfare? If so, has anyone ever complained about that?
1.4.2007 4:12pm
Mark Buehner (mail):
Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.

The dead, illegal aliens, felons... no, its not a thinly veiled attempt at all, its quite explicit.
1.4.2007 4:15pm
Random Commenter:
"Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."

It's a bit hard to imagine the rest of the opinion creating a context in which the above does not read as an ugly politically-motivated slander.
1.4.2007 4:15pm
TomH (mail):
The dissent remarks that approximately 4% of the voters would be disenfranchised because they are incapable of obtaining photo ID (disabled or requiring unobtainable documents) or at least lack the desire to obtain the ID (they don't drive). I ignore the cost constraint mentioned, because there are lower cost options.

Now, could the state fix this problem simply by making a provision for free Voter IDs upon submission of some kind of proof of identity. Perhaps the issuing authority can have an advocacy branch to help people get the necessary papers. If the issue concerns so few people, it does not seem that the cost would be so great to ensure a valid vote.
1.4.2007 4:18pm
Carleton Wu (mail) (www):
Posner would've been more accurate had he said that the "expressed purpose" of the law was to reduce fraud, rather than the "purpose". There is very little evidence that voter fraud occurs in any significant numbers. Which is not to say that it isn't a legiitmate concern of the state, but it does make the balancing act apparent.
I would have been happier if Posner had explicitly weighed the two factors: demonstrably small amounts of voter fraud against small inconveniences to certain classes of legitimate voters who would not otherwise obtain a government ID. He is certainly not compelled to defer to the legislature's stated intent in cases such as this where important rights are (theoretically) at stake.

As for the above comments about fraudulent votes trending Democratic: you do yourselves little credit by pretending to be ignorant of the issues involved. At best, you'll manage to persuade others that you are, in fact, ignorant. Congratulations on that.
Andy- Buying beer is not a fundamental right - your analogy is fatally flawed. The government at every level puts restrictions on alcohol (selling liquor licenses, forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sundays, taxing it, etc) of the sort that would be unconstitutional if applied to voting (selling the franchise, having a poll tax, etc).
1.4.2007 4:18pm
Bobbie (mail):
You're not exercising a fundamental right when you buy a beer, collect welfare, etc. There's, therefore, not the same concern about the burden you're putting on people.

And as the dissent notes, there’s not a shred of evidence that this law will prevent any fraud; indeed, there’s no evidence there’s any problem of voter fraud in Indiana.

This law is mostly going to prevent poor and disabled people from voting -- a point even Posner seems to concede. Those groups of people are, of course, more likely to vote democrat.

(And if we're going to cast stones about whether democrats or republicans are more likely to engage in voter fraud, shall we add up the conviction totals for both groups stemming from roles in voter fraud?)
1.4.2007 4:19pm
Jeremy T:
Carleton,

Trust me, I've been an election official for years. Fraudulent votes have always skewed Democrat and always will.

To those who suggest this is a "tough case," it's not. The state has every right to ensure that the people who are voting are legitimate voters.
1.4.2007 4:21pm
Whadonna More:
Doesn't anyone care that there are less privacy-intrusive ways to combat vote fraud, or do you commenters only care about winning?
1.4.2007 4:21pm
TomH (mail):
1.4.2007 4:22pm
Jeff Shultz (mail):
Since Indiana now has this law, presumably Indiana has some way for verifiably legal citizens to acquire the proper ID - if the poor and disabled can get out to vote, they can also get out to get ID verifying that voting is legal for them.
1.4.2007 4:24pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Posner would've been more accurate had he said that the "expressed purpose" of the law was to reduce fraud, rather than the "purpose". There is very little evidence that voter fraud occurs in any significant numbers.
But Posner quite correctly analyzed and dismissed that canard. There's "little evidence" because the status quo makes it impossible to obtain such evidence.

Meanwhile, as Posner points out, there's "little evidence" that anybody who wants to vote has actually been or would be "disenfranchised" [sic] by such laws; the plaintiffs couldn't find a single such person to make a party to their suit.
1.4.2007 4:26pm
Steve:
Now, could the state fix this problem simply by making a provision for free Voter IDs upon submission of some kind of proof of identity.

Surely they could do many things, but they're not going to, now that the law has been upheld as-is.
1.4.2007 4:26pm
Virginia:
How does requiring photo id intrude on anyone's privacy?
1.4.2007 4:26pm
TomH (mail):
Less Privacy Intrusive - Showing ID in these circumstances is not a privacy violation, I am required to show an ID that contains my photo and address.

When I register to Vote, I submit my address so that I am registered in the proper district for the purposes of local elections (now my address is volunteered to the public)

When I show up at the poll, I show my face in public, and in some places sign a signature card (now my face is in public)

The ID does not make my identity public, It just shows that I am who I purport to be.
1.4.2007 4:28pm
K Bennight (mail):

"Doesn't anyone care that there are less privacy-intrusive ways to combat vote fraud, or do you commenters only care about winning?"

I don't recall ever voting without showing a voter registration card, which I had obtained well in advance. The cards always show my name and address. I never gave privacy a moment's thought in that context. I fail to see how pulling out my driver's license is a material additional burden on my privacy.
1.4.2007 4:31pm
Random Commenter:
"There is very little evidence that voter fraud occurs in any significant numbers."

Obviously you're not familiar with Chicago's storied history, to raise one obvious example.

Irrespective of which party benefits most from fraud, from a public policy point of view fraud only has to occur in amounts sufficient to make the outcome of elections less clear to be important. As we have seen in the last three national elections, this is a low hurdle where voting is regionally segmented and some districts are closely divided.
1.4.2007 4:36pm
andy (mail) (www):
Is getting an ID really *that* bad? I mean, come on...a flippin' ID card, of all things. Pardon my skepticism of the doomsday scenarios.
1.4.2007 4:39pm
Virginia:
Here's some recent voter fraud from a different Seventh Circuit state:



Wisconsin does not yet have a photo ID requirement; the Democratic governor keeps vetoing it.
1.4.2007 4:41pm
gab (mail):
Do you have to show ID to vote absentee?
1.4.2007 4:41pm
gab (mail):
Ok, I guess I shoulda read the link. But shouldn't the requirement for showing ID somehow apply to absentee ballots votes as well?
1.4.2007 4:44pm
Virginia:
Here's some voter fraud from a different Seventh Circuit state:
link

Wisconsin does not yet have a photo ID requirement; the Democratic governor keeps vetoing it.
1.4.2007 4:45pm
glangston (mail):
Bpbatista (mail):
The dissent is absolutely correct: The law was intended to discourage turnout by certain folks that skews Democratic, i.e., fraudulent voters.





I will have to give than a big Amen.

Just consider it a piece of the National Security not unlike the efforts to insure safe travel. I can't see an argument for LESS scrutiny because it is a Right. That makes no sense at all. Should my claim of real property ownership be satisfied merely by swearing an oath?
1.4.2007 4:52pm
Phil (mail):
Indiana also requires that one show ID before buying a rifle and even makes you acquire a special permit to carry a handgun. Creeping facism . . .
1.4.2007 4:53pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Creeping facism . . .

Is that because it's a *picture* ID?
1.4.2007 4:57pm
A.S.:
The dissent states:


The real problem is that this law will make it significantly more difficult for some eligible voters — I have no idea how many, but 4 percent is a number that has been bandied about — to vote.


This strikes me as an awfully strange statement. Is 4% something that a judge should be stating without any evidence whatsoever??? It doesn't strike me as something that one may take judicial notice of. I'm shocked that a judge would put something like that in an opinion without a shred a evidence supporting it.

If there really was some signficant number of voters for whom an ID requirement is a significant barrier to voting, isn't it incumbent on the parties challenging the law to provide some evidence to that effect?
1.4.2007 5:07pm
Mark Buehner (mail):
You need significantly more than a photo ID to obtain a firearm in many states, even if you are a member of the National Guard etc. Is that not a fundamental right?

Secondly, it is just as empty a statement to declare that their is little or no voter fraud to combat as it is to declare there is enough to worry about. Anybody got any data?
1.4.2007 5:08pm
Phil (mail):
Anderson

That, and I am too lazy to preview (and my Italian stinks)
1.4.2007 5:09pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Ok, I guess I shoulda read the link. But shouldn't the requirement for showing ID somehow apply to absentee ballots votes as well?


I don’t have a problem with requiring someone who tries to get an absentee ballot to produce a photo ID.
1.4.2007 5:12pm
Colin (mail):
Is 4% something that a judge should be stating without any evidence whatsoever??? It doesn't strike me as something that one may take judicial notice of.

It's a dissent. He's not taking judicial notice of a fact, he's explaining why he did not vote with the majority. It's an entirely different level of formality.
1.4.2007 5:27pm
llamasex (mail) (www):
My dad works with the mentally unstable patients at the Veteran Administration. One of these guys needed picture ID to collect one of his benefits. He had no recent ID and lacked a lot of documents most of us keep in a safe or filing cabinet. It took my dad a week of jumping through different hoops to get this guy a government approved picture ID. People who have their papers in order (I would assume anyone who reads this site) most likely have no problem getting an ID card made, but it isn't like that for everyone. Especially after 9/11 since the government has become more stringent about making ID cards for those with limited documentation.
1.4.2007 5:32pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Is 4% something that a judge should be stating without any evidence whatsoever??? It doesn't strike me as something that one may take judicial notice of.


Well judging by Judge Evans’ amateur Karnack act in which he tells us what he thinks the real motives behind the law are and his opining from the bench about what sort of laws he thinks the legislature should pass, I’d say that since his dissent is based on his own policy preferences (or partisan leanings), it’s not surprising that he picks his own “facts” as well.
1.4.2007 5:50pm
PeterH:
Indiana DMV

From their website:
The Indiana identification card resembles a driver license, but has a non-driver label at the top. All ages are eligible to receive a state ID. The cards cost $13 and are valid for six years. If you are at least 65 years old or disabled, the cost is $10. If you can't afford to pay for a state ID card, you may be issued one for free if the proper documentation is presented.


I'm genuinely serious here. Aside from the snarky answers (dead people), who is it that is supposed to be so inconvenienced by this that they are being disenfranchised? The cost is hardly prohibitive, but it can be waived. The card lasts six years, so getting it or getting it renewed is no more of a hardship than getting to the polls.

Can someone explain to me what the issue really is? Or is it really the contention that the people opposed to it really are promoting voter fraud with no cover story?
1.4.2007 5:52pm
Kelvin McCabe (mail):
Or simply the fact that to get a state ID in Illinois, for example, you have to pay $10.00. Voting, of course, is free.

This amount of money may be trivial to all of us here, but to some, that could mean the difference between two meals in a day or one. I dont know if the DMV takes welfare cards. But if not, it would surely suck to be some candidate who loses by a few hundred votes (less than 4% of the total) because those who would have voted for him couldnt afford the 10 dollars. Just a thought.

I think the ID requirement is reasonable, i dont think it will prevent fraud and i think it will burden some people who are either too poor or lazy to get an I.D. Other than that, the law is useless. Whats the old adage, its not the people who vote that matter, its the people who count the votes that matter? (Diebold anybody?)
1.4.2007 5:56pm
Sebastian Holsclaw (mail):
"Let’s not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic"

I understand this is a dissent, but how does he know this?
1.4.2007 5:57pm
1881 (mail):
Bobbie said: "And if we're going to cast stones about whether democrats or republicans are more likely to engage in voter fraud, shall we add up the conviction totals for both groups stemming from roles in voter fraud?"

Yes, please; would be interested in this.
1.4.2007 6:03pm
PeterH:
From the decision:
So some people who have not bothered to
obtain a photo ID will not bother to do so just to be al-
lowed to vote, and a few who have a photo ID but forget
to bring it to the polling place will say what the hell and
not vote, rather than go home and get the ID and return to
the polling place.


I'm sorry, but aren't we setting the bar a might low, here? I am all for voter participation, and I would love to live in a country where everyone felt passionately a desire to vote.

I understand voting is a right, but does the government really have a responsibility to make it so effortless to exercise that we seriously talk about whether people will "bother" to do so?

They need an ID to vote. They need pants to be out in public. What about the people who don't "bother" to dress first?
1.4.2007 6:03pm
PeterH:
Kelvin, the Indiana DMV site specifically says that poor people can get the ID for free.
1.4.2007 6:04pm
FantasiaWHT:


This amount of money may be trivial to all of us here, but to some, that could mean the difference between two meals in a day or one. I dont know if the DMV takes welfare cards. But if not, it would surely suck to be some candidate who loses by a few hundred votes (less than 4% of the total) because those who would have voted for him couldnt afford the 10 dollars. Just a thought.


It would surely suck to be some candidate who loses by a few hundred fraudulent votes that could've been prevented.

Personally, I don't think just a voter ID is enough to catch the majority of voter fraud. Combine the picture ID with indelible purple ink on the thumb and I think you've got it.
1.4.2007 6:27pm
Peter Wimsey:
I have to agree that this is an excellent opinion; both the majority and the dissent are well written and tightly focused.

I tend to agree with Evans that this case should be subjected to strict scrutiny (light). Voting is a constitutional right that is fundamental to our system of government. Any law that impinges on this right needs to be examined very carefully. If a statute has the effect of disenfranchising, hypothetically, 4% of the voters, there needs to be some real justification for the law.

I differ from Evans in that I am not at all certain that the statute would fail under strict scrutiny. It's easy to - again hypothetically - justify the statute on the basis of voter fraud...and it may well be the case that (some) disenfranchisement may be necessary to prevent (more) voter fraud. In this context, it's important to keep in mind that voter fraud itself is disenfranchisement.

But I believe that the strict scrutiny analysis needs to have been done.
1.4.2007 6:38pm
nelziq:
Both opinions are necessarily based on conjecture as the two key pieces of evidence are entirely missing: one, how many voters would be disenfranchised, and two, how many votes are currently fraudulently cast but would be prevented. As both judges concede, there is almost zero evidence regarding either number. A best guess is all that can be done here. From the content of the opinion that seems like exactly what was done.
1.4.2007 6:38pm
A.S.:
It's a dissent. He's not taking judicial notice of a fact, he's explaining why he did not vote with the majority. It's an entirely different level of formality.

I'm not aware that there is supposed to be a different level of formality to a dissent. It seems to me that the purpose of a dissent is to convince others that the majority opinion is wrong. But a dissent that is based, in part, on "facts" for which no support is provided seems to me to be not very convincing. What reason is there for me to believe the 4% number? I can't see any.

The dissent is extremely poorly argued, IMO. It is nothing more than a judicial temper tantrum; an argument that contains baseless charge after baseless charge. Perhaps Judge Evans is farming his opinions out to Judge Anna Diggs Taylor?
1.4.2007 6:46pm
KeithK (mail):

I think the ID requirement is reasonable, i dont think it will prevent fraud and i think it will burden some people who are either too poor or lazy to get an I.D. Other than that, the law is useless.

Voter ID laws make it harder to commit fraud by eliminating one of the easy ways to do it. Such laws won't eliminate the possibility of fraud - there are plenty of other ways to go about it - but if it eliminates one of the possibilities at minimal cost it's worth it.

With rights come responsibilties. In order to exercise your right to vote you have to register. Upi have to show up at the polls or possibly get an absentee ballot. If someone is too lazy to make the minimal effort required then he has chosen not to exercise his rights. As for the cost issue, as others have pointed out one can potentially get a state ID in Indiana for free. Certainly this takes more effort than paying the fee but requiring someone to make some additional effort is not unreasonable.

And if someone forgets their ID and then just says "to hell with it" and goes home then exercising their right to vote wasn't very important to them. I don't feel sorry for that person.
1.4.2007 6:48pm
James Dillon (mail):
Nelziq,

That's an excellent point, in light of which it seems to me that this statute might fail even under the "more searching form of rational basis review" that Justice O'Connor suggested might apply to issues of particular constitutional sensitivity in Lawrence v. Texas. It seems as if, to be a legitimately rational decision, the state would need reliable evidence that the statute would prevent more voter fraud than it would cause disenfranchisement. In the absence of such evidence, I would think that this should be struck down as an irrational infringement on the exercise of voting rights.
1.4.2007 6:49pm
BN (mail):
One issue that I haven't seen addressed is the efficacy of non-photo ID's. In my mind a utility bill or a bank statement will work well enough to weed out the in person voter fraud that everyone seems to be so concerned about. A photo ID only requirement seems like an excessive and unnecessary burden for those who do not posses a photo ID if we really are discussing how to stop voter fraud.
1.4.2007 7:08pm
Jim Rhoads (mail):
I predict Posner's opinion will ultimately prevail? Anyone differ?
1.4.2007 7:13pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
> Doesn't anyone care that there are less privacy-intrusive ways to combat vote fraud, or do you commenters only care about winning?

Perhaps the advocates of such methods will work to put those methods in place in some jurisdictions.

Then we could compare the effects of different ways.
1.4.2007 7:14pm
Brett Bellmore:
In my mind a utility bill or bank statement only establishes that the potential voter has access to a registered voter's trash. It does diddly to establish that they're the person whose name is on the bill.
1.4.2007 7:19pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
The argument that this law will "disenfranchise" people who forgot to bring their photo ID with them and can't be bothered to go fetch it raises interesting questions. Some states, as I understand it, require (non-photo) assurance of identity to vote -- utility bills in one's name and to one's address, &c. will do. These are not things anyone habitually carries around. Aren't people who forget these proofs and don't bother to fetch them "disenfranchised" now in exactly the same way that it is claimed others will be with a photo ID requirement? And are such laws therefore suspect in the same way?

I only wish we had requirements so, um, burdensome in California. All I have to do to vote here in Marin County is sign my name to the register. No one, in twenty years of voting in this state, has asked me to demonstrate that I am who I say I am when voting. I find this peculiar and disturbing.
1.4.2007 7:21pm
Visitor Again:
I've lived and/or worked among the poor for decades in Los Angeles, and my experience is that a significant number of them have no photo identification, certainly not valid photo identification, and that a lesser, but still significant number have no identification at all. These people don't drive, or they drive without a license; they usually don't have regular jobs; they don't have credit cards and they don't have bank accounts. That includes the people who sleep on the streets and in the parks.

Not enough of these people participate in the electoral process to begin with. The addition of a photo id requirement will certainly preclude more of them from voting. I think that is the real purpose of these new photo id laws.

I would have thought the deliberate disenfranchisement of the poor by deleting their names from the registration rolls, as in Florida, and by understaffing and underequipping polling places where the poor vote, resulting in long lines and waits of several hours to vote, as in Ohio, were enough to prevent their vote, but I guess not.

If the requirement of a photo id is upheld, my suggestion to the Democratic Party and other political organizations concerned about fairness in voting is that they develop a program for getting free photo id's to the poor, one that will not only make voting easy for them but also encourage them to vote. Then, of course, there will be screams about fraud in the production and distribution of photo id's.
1.4.2007 7:25pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
BN,

I ought to add that there exist people without either bank accounts or utilities billed in their names. A fair number, in fact. Most of them are children, of course, but some are indigent adult citizens with a legitimate right to vote. What to do?
1.4.2007 7:26pm
BN (mail):
Brett Bellmore,

If we are shooting for a 100% fraud free election then you may have a relevant point but a non-photo ID is enough of a hurdle to ensure that material instances of in person voter fraud will not occur.
1.4.2007 7:28pm
BN (mail):
Ms. Thomson,

There are other forms of non-photo ID, leases, paystubs, government assistance checks, etc. If a person can't produce one piece of paper with his address and name on it then he probably couldn't register to vote in the first place.
1.4.2007 7:36pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Visitor Again,

I'm struck by your statement that "a significant number of [the poor in LA] have no photo identification, certainly not valid photo identification[.]" Meaning some have "invalid" photo ID? There are really only two reasons to have fake ID: You want to buy cigarettes or alcohol while under age, or you want to pretend you are a citizen when you aren't. There are an awful lot of noncitizens in LA, and I don't think they ought to be voting. Have you any thoughts on how we'd go about restricting voting to citizens without over-burdening the poor?
1.4.2007 7:37pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
BN,

There are supposed to be some thousands of homeless people in San Francisco alone. They by definition haven't fixed addresses, and most likely not jobs (of the kind that generate paystubs, anyway) either. As to whether they would have difficulty registering to vote in such circumstances: I doubt it, but if they did, wouldn't it just push the whole problem back to registration? Or is it OK to place burdens on registering to vote that would be wrong to impose on actually voting? I can't see why.
1.4.2007 7:46pm
Visitor Again:
I'm struck by your statement that "a significant number of [the poor in LA] have no photo identification, certainly not valid photo identification[.]" Meaning some have "invalid" photo ID?

Actually, I was thinking of expired drivers' licenses as invalid photo ID, the invalidity arising from the fact of expiration.

There are really only two reasons to have fake ID: You want to buy cigarettes or alcohol while under age, or you want to pretend you are a citizen when you aren't. There are an awful lot of noncitizens in LA, and I don't think they ought to be voting. Have you any thoughts on how we'd go about restricting voting to citizens without over-burdening the poor?

I don't no about other types of invalid photo ID's, although I saw TV programs a couple of years ago on a brisk market in creating and selling phony ID in the environs of McArthur Park. The purpose of the scam was to get illegal immigrants drivers' licenses. There has been a crackdown on this and there are new restrictions, including required provision of social security number, on getting a driver's license.

I don't know that the huge immigrant population here translates into a voting fraud problem. I do know that Republicans have tried to frighten even immigrants who have become citizens away from the polls in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.
1.4.2007 8:10pm
Visitor Again:
I have the feeling that illegal immigrants in Southern California are not eager to bring possible trouble on themselves by voting unlawfully. They do not like to attract attention from the authorities. Those immigrants who are here lawfully are generally law-abiding and likely to wait to get their citizenship before trying to vote. So there is no voting fraud problem with the immigrants, as I see it.

In any event, the Republicans usually have some sort of intensive campaign advising immigrants they cannot legally vote. Unfortunatley, they sometimes fail to distinguish between immigrants who have become citizens and other immigrants. Typical.
1.4.2007 8:22pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Visitor Again,

I can't imagine why anyone with a valid driver's license wouldn't renew it before it expired.

I don't know that the huge immigrant population here translates into a voting fraud problem. I do know that Republicans have tried to frighten even immigrants who have become citizens away from the polls in Orange and Los Angeles Counties.

I would say that if you have a large non-citizen population and no particular control on who votes, you have a potentially massive fraud problem, yes?
1.4.2007 8:25pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):

Not enough of these people participate in the electoral process to begin with. The addition of a photo id requirement will certainly preclude more of them from voting. I think that is the real purpose of these new photo id laws.


If any of them participate its too many, imho. They are not sufficiently mentally competent to vote. They are not sufficiently invested in our society to vote. These are the kinds of people that democrats love to load on buses with payments in booze and cigarettes and drive to various polling places within and without the state in which they might be found.

Any person in today's society who doesn't know how to get a photo ID when one is available for free or next to free; or can't be bothered to get one; or is incapable of caring for their own physical needs such as providing their own housing and food and clothes has not demonstrated sufficient intelligence, investment in the society, and/or sufficient mental competence to be allowed to vote.

There are way too many ill informed incompetent a**holes allowed to vote as it is, at a minimum those who are not competent to care for themselves or secure a voter ID card should not vote.

Also, to those who say voting is a fundamental right. You are wrong. Its only a fundamental right if the state in which you live chooses to allow you to vote. States are not bound by the constitution to pick presidents by the popular vote of the general population, and the states are free to establish voting requirements.

I for one think you should have to have a drivers license, have a lease of 6 months or longer on a home/apt, and own other property at a minimum to be able to vote. Anyone who is mentally or physically competent to work should be disallowed from voting if receiving any form of direct government aid. Its a blatant conflict of interest between their voting and their direct disposable income.

So forgive me if I don't get all excited because in this day and age we should try to take voting as seriously as we take opening a bank account or a movie rental account or any of the other hundred things we do each month that require showing a photo ID. Boo Hoo, Boo Hoo. Poor little incompetent can't bother to vote if they don't get paid mental incompetents incapable of caring for themselves.

Says the "Dog"
1.4.2007 8:30pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Visitor Again,

If voting in SoCal is anything like voting in the Bay Area, the "authorities" can be trusted not to give a damn who's voting under which voter's name.

Seriously, VA, what would you think allowable in the way of ascertaining that a would-be voter is a registered voter and a citizen? Do you take it on faith? If not, what do you require?
1.4.2007 8:34pm
Visitor Again:
I can't imagine why anyone with a valid driver's license wouldn't renew it before it expired.

Try getting out in the real world sometime. A huge number of people fail to renew valid drivers' licenses before expiration. Many of them don't do it until a traffic stop brings it to their attention by way of a ticket, sometimes years after expiration.

You obviously live an organized life. Many don't. They don't have calendars and reminders. Sometimes they don't have even the few dollars to pay for the renewal and put it off, then forget about it.
1.4.2007 8:56pm
Visitor Again:
If voting in SoCal is anything like voting in the Bay Area, the "authorities" can be trusted not to give a damn who's voting under which voter's name.

Seriously, VA, what would you think allowable in the way of ascertaining that a would-be voter is a registered voter and a citizen? Do you take it on faith? If not, what do you require?


I require nothing. I take most people on faith. I prefer it that way, even if I get burned occasionally.

Both political parties have representatives at polling places. They are able to challenge a voter if they think it is justified. I don't know the procedure. I'm not a voting rights attorney. But I have not read anything about immigrant voter fraud having been discovered here.
1.4.2007 9:01pm
Hattio (mail):
Judge Posner notes that dilution of the right to vote has been recognized as impairment. Anybody know of any case besides Bush v. Gore (which of course was a special case not to ever be cited for any reason...yeah right) which recognized that?
1.4.2007 9:12pm
Hattio (mail):
Second question. Several commentators have noted that you can get ID's for free. What sort of documentation do you have to have to get an ID? Doesn't this just push back the poll tax?
1.4.2007 9:13pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
If any of them participate its too many, imho. They are not sufficiently mentally competent to vote.

JYLD provides insight into the motivation behind the law.
1.4.2007 9:20pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Visitor Again,

Try getting out in the real world sometime. A huge number of people fail to renew valid drivers' licenses before expiration. Many of them don't do it until a traffic stop brings it to their attention by way of a ticket, sometimes years after expiration.

You obviously live an organized life. Many don't. They don't have calendars and reminders. Sometimes they don't have even the few dollars to pay for the renewal and put it off, then forget about it.

You seem to know an awful lot about me, VA; unfortunately, it's mostly wrong. I do not have a driver's license. I don't drive. If I need to identify myself, I use my passport. That is what we do out in my particular suburb of the "real world."

If I DID drive, I would have the elementary common sense to renew my license when it expired. Because, y'know, driving without a valid license is, um, illegal. This is not complicated.
1.4.2007 9:32pm
Bob R (mail):
I favor the law and the decision because I feel that using illegal is a very real deliberate strategy in many districts. But I'll throw out a point of information that I was not aware of until I helped my son (who is disabled and unable to drive) get a VDOT photo ID recently in Virginia. It is no longer a trivial exercise. I don't know if it's 9/11 or MADD, but a passport, birth certificate, and social security card wasn't enough. Had to get a certified high school transcript. So I would not discount the very real burden that the law imposes.
1.4.2007 9:50pm
Connie (mail):
Two data points:

1. While the voter ID may be free, a certified copy of your birth certificate, even if it exists and can be located, is not free.

2. In Wisconsin, the last time I renewed my drivers license, the woman at the DMV returned my old one and told me I could use it as a backup for, e.g., airline travel if my purse were stolen. Hence a real life example of a no longer valid ID.
1.4.2007 9:50pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Judge Posner notes that dilution of the right to vote has been recognized as impairment. Anybody know of any case besides Bush v. Gore (which of course was a special case not to ever be cited for any reason...yeah right) which recognized that?


Had you bothered to actually read the opinion, Posner cited three cases: Purcell v. Gonzalez, supra, 127 S. Ct. at 7; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964); Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1199 (11th Cir. 2000).
1.4.2007 9:51pm
Visitor Again:
You seem to know an awful lot about me, VA; unfortunately, it's mostly wrong. I do not have a driver's license. I don't drive. If I need to identify myself, I use my passport. That is what we do out in my particular suburb of the "real world."

Where did I say you had a driver's license or that you drove, Michelle? Nowhere. What I did do was say that you obviously lead an organized life on the basis of your statement that you could not imagine circumstances in which someone would fail to renew a valid driver's license. So am I wrong about you living an organized life? If I am, I will retract that and apologize.
1.4.2007 9:56pm
Avatar (mail):
Frankly, I don't have a problem with ID requirements making it more difficult for people with mental problems to vote. That is not a bug, but a feature.

That said, voter registration is not an unreasonable measure, and in order to register to vote, you have to be able to do at least a minimal amount of paperwork; there's nothing about obtaining photo identification that makes it obviously worse. Why, if voter ID is such a restriction on the right to vote, is voter registration not? After all, plenty of people move and don't renew their voter registration in time; those people are effectively disenfranchised in their new domicile...
1.4.2007 10:01pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Visitor Again,

I do not live an "organized life" as you evidently define it. I do not have "calendars and reminders." And yet I do have occasional contact with the "real world." I'd appreciate it if you would make it clear how one gets "real world" cred chez vous. Round here it involves just living, but possibly it's different in your neighborhood.
1.4.2007 10:14pm
Eli Rabett (www):
As Visitor says it's a different world out there. My mom, for example, was born at home. The doc said he would register the birth, instead he went and had a drink. Eventually the guy died, mom grew up and applied for a job, they wanted a birth certificate.........

It took years to straighten out and the only way it could be done was through the census records. When she went to get a passport at age 50 it got interesting and that was back in the 60s. Want to guess what would happen today?
1.4.2007 10:22pm
Visitor Again:
Since I'm arguing against what I regard as voter disenfranchisement, I feel I should disclose that I do not vote as a matter of choice.

From 1964, when I first became eligible to vote as a 21-year old, until 2000, I voted in every election save two minor local elections when I was out of town and forgot to get an absentee ballot. But I have not voted in any election since the 2000 election, when the Republican Party and the Republican members of the U.S. Supreme Court pulled off the biggest heist in world history, disenfranchising the poor and crowning the pretender Bush king of the U.S.A. for four and, ultimately, eight years and allowing the Republican Party and its backers to loot the country.

It's a matter of personal principle; I will not participate in and thereby lend credibility to an election system that is thoroughly corrupt, rotten and anti-democratic. Continuing successful efforts to disenfranchise the poor, motivated by elitist attitudes like those demonstrated by Junkyard Dog, confirm that. One less vote the Republicans have to worry about, I know, but it's the form of protest I feel most comfortable with--nonviolent nonparticipation. I don't urge anyone else not to vote, and I still occasionally exercise free speech rights, as my posts here show, because I still care passionately about the issues.
1.4.2007 10:23pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):

It took years to straighten out and the only way it could be done was through the census records. When she went to get a passport at age 50 it got interesting and that was back in the 60s. Want to guess what would happen today?


Let me guess, you wouldn't wait 50 years to make sure that you had a birth certificate?
1.4.2007 10:25pm
JonC:
Several commentators have noted that you can get ID's for free. What sort of documentation do you have to have to get an ID? Doesn't this just push back the poll tax?

Hattio, what could the state of Indiana do above and beyond providing free ID's to the indigent, as it already does, to reduce what you refer to as the "poll tax" to zero? There will always inevitably be some costs to voting, i.e. the cost of gas to drive to the polling place, the 37 cents for the stamp on an absentee ballot, or just the opportunity costs imposed by voting instead of doing something else valuable with one's time.
1.4.2007 10:29pm
JoshL (mail):

I for one think you should have to have a drivers license, have a lease of 6 months or longer on a home/apt, and own other property at a minimum to be able to vote. Anyone who is mentally or physically competent to work should be disallowed from voting if receiving any form of direct government aid.



So college students with grants or student loans, who do not work, and live in dorms (or in an apartment that mom and dad are paying for, or live at home) shouldn't be allowed to vote?

How about a young professional, paying off said student loans, who lives in a house where the mortgage is in mom and dad's name, so that they can get, say, 6% interest instead of 7.5?
1.4.2007 10:31pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
So college students with grants or student loans, who do not work, and live in dorms (or in an apartment that mom and dad are paying for, or live at home) shouldn't be allowed to vote?


Well as somsone who worked all the way through college, didn't take a dime in financial aid, and paid taxes so that my future competitors in the job market had more time to study, I say damn right.
1.4.2007 10:34pm
Visitor Again:
I do not live an "organized life" as you evidently define it. I do not have "calendars and reminders." And yet I do have occasional contact with the "real world." I'd appreciate it if you would make it clear how one gets "real world" cred chez vous. Round here it involves just living, but possibly it's different in your neighborhood.

You get in touch with the real world by broadening your capacity to imagine that other people do things differently than you do--possibly because there circumstances are different--so that you no longer say things like


I can't imagine why anyone with a valid driver's license wouldn't renew it before it expired



or this


If I DID drive, I would have the elementary common sense to renew my license when it expired. Because, y'know, driving without a valid license is, um, illegal. This is not complicated.


For some people, regrettably, it is complicated, Michelle. Not for you, apparently, but put your thinking cap on about others.

I'm sorry I wrongly concluded that you live an organized life. I would have bet a lot that you did, but I accept your statement that I am wrong on that and apologize.
1.4.2007 10:41pm
Visitor Again:
"there circumstances" should be "their circumstances."
1.4.2007 10:42pm
Broken Quanta (mail) (www):
VA, you keep on about people who do not "live organized lives." But you treat this as though it is a constant of the Universe: opposite charges attract, and your LA friends do not have their papers in order. In truth, such people lead "disorganized lives" because that is what they choose to do. Thus they are disenfranchised not by ID or registration requirements but by (poor) decisions made of their own free will. It's unclear to many of us why we should share your concern for their poitical involvement.

Kelvin, a $10 fee (1000 cents) levied every six years (2191 days, give or take a leap year) is equal to a charge of ~0.46 cents per day. It's very difficult to believe that the difference between one and two meals a day is less than one half of a single penny. After all, one can very literally find that much money just lying around on the street.
1.4.2007 10:44pm
JunkYardLawDog (mail):
JoshL


So college students with grants or student loans, who do not work, and live in dorms (or in an apartment that mom and dad are paying for, or live at home) shouldn't be allowed to vote?


No they shouldn't, and the voting age should be raised back up to 21 at a minimum where it used to be before the hippies raised a ruckus and got it lowered to 18. If 18 is too young to buy booze its definitely too young to vote. The college student living at home could lease a room from mom and dad and qualify for voting under my "dream" scenario but the college student in a dorm room without a 6 month or longer lease is out of luck. Not sufficiently invested in society and the success of our society to need to vote, and for most too damn young to vote.


How about a young professional, paying off said student loans, who lives in a house where the mortgage is in mom and dad's name, so that they can get, say, 6% interest instead of 7.5?


That's easy. They do a lease with mommy and daddy until they grow up and stand on their own two feet. So not a problem for the young professional still sucking off mommy's tit.

Says the "Dog"
1.4.2007 10:45pm
Visitor Again:
Getting a birth certificate is extremely difficult for some people. I have a neighbor, an African-American in his seventies now, living in Los Angeles but born in Mississippi, who tried for years to get his birth certificate so that he could get a passport to visit Belize. He finally came to me about a decade ago, and I found a very helpful clerk in Mississippi who went to extraordinary lengths to find it. He eventually did, after several weeks of searching through the records of several counties. My client had one of his names wrong, his date of birth wrong by a couple of months and his place of birth wrong, but he had his parents right and that was enough for a diligent search to pay off. The clerk told me this kind of problem was very common across the South; the record-keeping for "these people," he said, was very haphazard and sloppy.
1.4.2007 11:05pm
Visitor Again:
VA, you keep on about people who do not "live organized lives." But you treat this as though it is a constant of the Universe: opposite charges attract, and your LA friends do not have their papers in order. In truth, such people lead "disorganized lives" because that is what they choose to do. Thus they are disenfranchised not by ID or registration requirements but by (poor) decisions made of their own free will. It's unclear to many of us why we should share your concern for their poitical involvement.

I don't give a rat's ass whether you or others care about their political involvement. I do care when the state tries to make living an organized life with records at hand a qualification for voting. The fact is, whether it is their fault or not, many of the poor do not have photo id at hand, and some of them do not have the means to acquire it.
1.4.2007 11:13pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I can't imagine why anyone with a valid driver's license wouldn't renew it before it expired.
That having been said, I can't imagine why any voter fraud law requires an unexpired license. The only reason licenses expire is so the state can raise more money by charging licenseholders to renew; it's not clear what that has to do with identification. One's identity doesn't expire; only one's right to drive.
1.4.2007 11:41pm
Visitor Again:
David,

You should be right about that. But try using an expired driver's license as identification at a bank and see where it gets you. Nowhere. Or as id to get into a jail or a prison as a visitor. Nowhere. Or as id to establish age sufficient to buy liquor. Nowhere. Will voting authorities act differently? I bet not.
1.4.2007 11:56pm
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
VA,

You get in touch with the real world by broadening your capacity to imagine that other people do things differently than you do--possibly because their circumstances are different

Fine. If you can explain to me why anyone with a driver's license wouldn't renew it when it was about to expire, I'd appreciate it. If you have a driver's license, you likely have a car; therefore, you can drive to the DMV. And if you do have a car, and a license, it is very strongly in your interest to renew the license.

The fact is, whether it is their fault or not, many of the poor do not have photo id at hand, and some of them do not have the means to acquire it.

And many of the poor will have a hard time proving their US citizenship. Can we please start talking about what we should reasonably require as proof of elegibility to vote? Because anything we do is going to present some sort of inconvenience to some people who legitimately have the franchise.
1.4.2007 11:59pm
John Herbison (mail):
JunkYardLawDog posits:


Also, to those who say voting is a fundamental right. You are wrong. Its only a fundamental right if the state in which you live chooses to allow you to vote. States are not bound by the constitution to pick presidents by the popular vote of the general population, and the states are free to establish voting requirements.


This at least overlooks Article I, § 2 of the Constitution, which provides for popular election of the House of Representatives, the Article IV, § 4 guaranty to every state of a republican form of government, and the Seventeenth Amendment, providing for popular election of senators.

Voting is indeed a fundamental right, and states are not free to establish voting requirements that unreasonably impinge thereupon, such as onerous requirements as to length of residence within the state. Last I knew, Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972), is still good law.
1.5.2007 12:01am
Truth Seeker:
I've lived and/or worked among the poor for decades in Los Angeles, and my experience is that a significant number of them have no photo identification, certainly not valid photo identification

This may sound harsh, but should people who live off government benefits have the same voting rights as people who pay large amounts in taxes? Oh sure we're raised to think that everyone should have an equal vote. But is it really fair for part of society to vote away the property rights of other members of society? What if 51% vote to take everything away from the other 49% because they are jealous? Maybe we should reconsider who has the right to vote and deny the vote to anyone who does not pay taxes.
1.5.2007 12:07am
Visitor Again:
Again I am not a voting rights attorney, but I did a little research in the area and posted it on another thread on this blog yesterday. The equal protection clause guarantees not a substantive right to vote but the right to equal treatment once the right to vote has been otherwise established by state law. Once the right to vote has been established by state law, however, the right to equal treatment in the voting process is regarded as fundamental and it may be impaired only by the most compelling interest.

In San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 n. 78 (1973) (emphasis supplied), the Court noted that:


Since the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right, we assume that appellees' references to that right are simply shorthand references to the protected right, implicit in our constitutional system, to participate in state elections on an equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the State has adopted an elective process for determining who will represent any segment of the State's population. See n. 74, supra.





At note 74 (emphasis supplied), the Court said:




Dunn [Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)] fully canvasses this Court's voting rights cases, and explains that




this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction.




405 U.S. at 336 (emphasis supplied). The constitutional underpinnings of the right to equal treatment in the voting process can no longer be doubted, even though, as the Court noted in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. at 665, "the right to vote in state elections is nowhere expressly mentioned." See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. at 135, 138-44 (DOUGLAS, J.), 229, 241-242 (BRENNAN, WHITE, and MARSHALL, JJ.); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. at 140-144; Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621, 625-630 (1969); Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23, 29, 30-31 (1968); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554-562 (1964); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 379-381 (1963).





In his concurring opinion in San Antonio, Justice Stewart said:




Unlike other provisions of the Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause confers no substantive rights and creates no substantive liberties. [n2] The function of the Equal Protection Clause, rather, is simply to measure the validity of classifications created by state laws.






411 U.S. at 59. In his footnote 2 (emphasis supplied), he wrote:




There is one notable exception to the above statement: it has been established in recent years that the Equal Protection Clause confers the substantive right to participate on an equal basis with other qualified voters whenever the State has adopted an electoral process for determining who will represent any segment of the State's population. See, e.g., Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533; Kramer v. Union School District, 395 U.S. 621; Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336. But there is no constitutional right to vote, as such. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162. If there were such a right, both the Fifteenth Amendment and the Nineteenth Amendment would have been wholly unnecessary.



In Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 104-05 (2000) (per curiam)(emphasis supplied), the Court majority noted:




The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another. See, e.g., Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U.S. 663, 665 (1966) (“[O]nce the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines may not be drawn which are inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”). It must be remembered that “the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964).
1.5.2007 12:22am
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
Does anyone have an estimate for how much money it cost William Crawford, et al. to pursue this suit all the way to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit?

Does anyone have an estimate for how much money it would have cost William Crawford, et al. to have set up a fund to pay the $13 for a legal photo ID for every indigent would-be voter who wanted one?

I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the latter amount of money is minuscule compared to the former one.

From this, I think it's reasonable to infer that concern for the voting rights of the "disenfranchised" poor was not what motivated the plaintiffs. YMMV, of course.
1.5.2007 1:28am
Visitor Again:
If you can explain to me why anyone with a driver's license wouldn't renew it when it was about to expire, I'd appreciate it. If you have a driver's license, you likely have a car; therefore, you can drive to the DMV. And if you do have a car, and a license, it is very strongly in your interest to renew the license.

I already did explain.


They don't have calendars and reminders. Sometimes they don't have even the few dollars to pay for the renewal and put it off, then forget about it.


I disagree that the fact that someone has a driver's license means it is likely he or she has a vehicle; lots of poor people have a license, valid or expired, but no car.

That a main focus of the discussion has become expired licenses is ridiculous, and I will take the blame for that.

I said "a significant number of them [the poor] have no photo identification, certainly not valid photo identification, and that a lesser, but still significant number have no identification at all." You asked, "Meaning some have "invalid" photo ID?" I responded: "Actually, I was thinking of expired drivers' licenses as invalid photo ID, the invalidity arising from the fact of expiration." You replied you couldn't imagine circumstances in which people did not renew a valid license, and we then took off on a dispute engendered by my snarky remark, which I ought not to have made and for which I apologize, that you needed to get in touch with the real world, a dispute accompanied by much ado over whether and why people do not renew their licenses.

It is a fact that lots of people do not renew their licenses in timely fashion, including, by the way, otherwise perfectly respectable, law-abiding middle class people. It may be difficult for poor people to get their licenses renewed late because of the accumulation of ticket fine for nonpossession of valid license and penalty for late payment on top of the renewal fee. That may present a problem for them when it comes time to vote if they do not have the money to pay all this and get their photo id license renewed. It is my view that their neglect in timely renewal of their driver's license is not grounds for taking away the vote from them.

But the main problem is people who do not have any driver's license at all, expired or unexpired. There are plenty of them among the poor.

California DMV used to have a nondriver's id card available for a few dollars. I don't know if it still does. I vaguely remember reading that it is no longer available in the wake of 7/11 and increased security concerns, but I'm not sure of this.

Requiring people to pay to get photo id or to undertake any cumbersome or burdensome process in getting an acceptable id is, in my view, a violation of the equal protection clause's guarantee of equal treatment in the voting process.

The circumstances of the poor are simply not understood by many middle and upper class folks. They cannot imagine that the small expense of getting a photo id can be difficult.

People literally live on nothing the last week or more of every month. Those who have a little share food and a few dollars with their friends and neighbors until the first comes. I'm not talking just about recipients of welfare, unemployment and disability benefits, but about working people, too, those who subsist on the minimum wage or little more and those who scrounge around for odd jobs here and there and who find work only irregularly. Most of these people do not have cars or driver's licenses. A few dollars is a lot of money to them.

The very least the state should be required to do if this photo id requirement is upheld is to provide free photo id at the time and place of voter registration. No hassle, no trouble, no payment required.

There haven't been any voter frauds uncovered in Los Angeles County that I know of. All this talk about potential fraud is a bunch of mullarkey designed to put obstacles in the way of the poor voting and to aid the Republican Party, which has taken the mantra that every vote counts to new levels in its determination to ensure that as few Democrats vote as possible.

I hope that adequately explains my position.
1.5.2007 1:30am
Visitor Again:
And many of the poor will have a hard time proving their US citizenship. Can we please start talking about what we should reasonably require as proof of elegibility to vote? Because anything we do is going to present some sort of inconvenience to some people who legitimately have the franchise.

I forgot to answer this, although part of my answer is that there is no voter fraud problem requiring any sort of photo id system.

When people show up to register to vote, they might be asked to swear to their place of birth and/or citizenship on a form. That's all the state should require. If the state still wants to disenfranchise them, it should bear the burden of showing why they should be disenfranchised. That's fair. There should be a right to a hearing meeting standards of due process since the fundamental right of equal treatment in the voting process is at stake. In general, once a declaration or affidavit of eligibility has been filed, the state must accept it without further ado unless it has grounds to question eligibility. There's no reason why anything more should be required to become eligible to vote.
1.5.2007 1:46am
Ken Arromdee:
JunkYardLawDog:

Not sufficiently invested in society and the success of our society to need to vote,

Truth Seeker:

This may sound harsh, but should people who live off government benefits have the same voting rights as people who pay large amounts in taxes? Oh sure we're raised to think that everyone should have an equal vote. But is it really fair for part of society to vote away the property rights of other members of society?

We're getting into Starship Troopers territory here.

Voting is used to do more than vote how to use other people's tax money. Voting is used to affect *what the government can force you to do*.

College students and people who live off of government benefits may not be paying many taxes, but they can get arrested for having an abortion, put in jail for practicing gay sex, forced to use segregated drinking fountains, and all sorts of other things that were either established by government or eradicated by government, down to the smaller laws like no-smoking laws, zoning laws, and laws saying you can't buy beer on Sunday (not to mention the military draft). As such, they have enough of a stake that they should be allowed to vote.

Voting is fundamentally about a government run by the consent of the governed.
1.5.2007 2:17am
Ragerz (mail):
Visitor Again,

I am completely persuaded by your arguments. Keep up the good work. =)

As some of the responses to your persuasive points illustrate, it is clear that some people just don't care about the basic rights of the disadvantaged. This isn't suprising. Society has always had a decent number of completely self-centered individuals, totally devoid of character and compassion. Also known as sociopaths. Nowadays, those people tend to make up a subset of the Republican party. Fortunately, there are many other Republicans who are reasonable individuals. (EV comes to mind as an example.)

The point is, always remember that your inability to persuade a few fringe fanatics does not reflect on the strength and persuasiveness of your argument. You have made your point well.
1.5.2007 3:03am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Yes, Ragerz, where "A few fringe fanatics" = "a majority of the country." But keep trolling.
1.5.2007 4:40am
Brett Bellmore:

All this talk about potential fraud is a bunch of mullarkey designed to put obstacles in the way of the poor voting and to aid the Republican Party


As has been repeatedly pointed out, the absence of any ID check precludes there being any evidence of the fraud taking place; You can't see what you avoid looking for.

Free speech is a fundamental right. The BCRA decision allowed onerous restrictions on it to prevent the possiblity of the appearance of fraud.

Owning a firearm is a fundamental right. I have to undergo an FBI check to exercise it.

Nope, sorry, I'm just not impressed with how terribly burdensome it is, having to prove you're who you claim to be before voting.
1.5.2007 5:51am
Federal Dog:
"The fact is, whether it is their fault or not, many of the poor do not have photo id at hand, and some of them do not have the means to acquire it."


Bull. All they have to do is ask for it and ask that any fee be waived, as provided in the law.
1.5.2007 6:12am
SG:
Visitor Again:

A fraudulently cast vote disenfranchises a legitimate voter to exactly the same degree that wrongly turned away voter is disenfranchised. The difference is that the second case has a name associated with it, but that doesn't make it any worse to the legitimacy of the election than an illegitmate voter voting.

Given that the law waived the fee for the ID for need, you're essentially arguing against any mechanism to validate that a voter. With your political motivations duly noted, it seems that you're the one who doesn't care about respecting the franchise if it helps your party can win.
1.5.2007 7:10am
W.D.:
Anyone who doesn't think the intention (at least in part) of this measure is to suppress legitimate voter turnout is in deep denial or on crack. Kudos to Judge Evans for stating the obvious.

But leaving intentions aside, is there anyone here who would deny that this is an inevitable effect of the legislation? Regardless of how much of fraud this prevents, let's be honest that, like it or not, it will surely discourage some legit voters from voting. At least some posters above are forthright about desiring this outcome (those voters are too lazy, dumb, poor, etc., for democracy).

It seems clear to me that this has little to do with concern for fraud per se, but is a proxy war over voter turnout. If the poor, largely minority demographics we are discussing here (those likely to not have govt. issued photo ids) were to start trending heavily Republican, might not the parties reverse positions on "voter ID" measures? I suspect so.
1.5.2007 7:30am
Michelle Dulak Thomson (mail):
Visitor Again,

People literally live on nothing the last week or more of every month. Those who have a little share food and a few dollars with their friends and neighbors until the first comes. I'm not talking just about recipients of welfare, unemployment and disability benefits, but about working people, too, those who subsist on the minimum wage or little more and those who scrounge around for odd jobs here and there and who find work only irregularly.

Not that it matters at all to the point, but anyone who is short at the end of the month and waiting for the first to roll around is almost certainly waiting for a government check. Low-paying retail jobs (I should know; I have one right now) pay weekly or bi-weekly; odd jobs, obviously, pay on completion. The only checks I know of that arrive once a month are gov't checks, salaries, and rental income, and I can assume you're not talking about people living on the latter two.

Re voter identity: What, if anything, would you do to ensure that the person voting is the same person who registered to vote?
1.5.2007 7:36am
Eli Rabett (www):
No Thorley, mom waited about 20, while she grew up. The first time she needed a birth certificate was the first time she started looking, but no one issues retroactive birth certificates. She had to settle for something lesser which satisfied her employer. Requirements for a passport require proof of citizenship, and if you don't have a birth certificate or naturalization papers that is, as they say, difficult. But you, of course, always do everything right and Commander Coincidence never visits your neighborhood.

What happened to all the people here who say government ALWAYS messes up. Think it will get this perfectly right, or are you assuming that someone else will be disenfranchised?
1.5.2007 7:56am
JRL:
Both opinions are necessarily based on conjecture as the two key pieces of evidence are entirely missing: one, how many voters would be disenfranchised, and two, how many votes are currently fraudulently cast but would be prevented.

IMO, those 2 pieces of evidences are completely irrelevant to deciding the matter. See here.
1.5.2007 8:02am
DeezRightWingNutz:
I think holding elections so early in the month is just an attempt to disenfranchise the poor. The money from the welfare check won't have run out, so many people are too high/drunk to be able to vote. It's not right for the state to expect people to lead a sober, organized life in order to vote. Why should people be denied the right to vote just because they're passed out the entire time the polls are open (meth addicts, obviously, are excluded).

Back me up on this Visitor Again.
1.5.2007 8:24am
lsu (mail):
Why not a personal identification number (PIN) that you select when you register to vote? It would eliminate the cost aspect and the problems with people unable to obtain get old documents to get an i.d. card. And its good enough for banks, who probably have the most experience dealing with fraud issues.
1.5.2007 8:46am
PubliusFL:
Mark Buehner: "You need significantly more than a photo ID to obtain a firearm in many states, even if you are a member of the National Guard etc. Is that not a fundamental right?"

You're right! Here's an idea - instead of "Motor Voter," how about a federal law requiring states to use the same process for voter registration that they do for firearms purchases? ;)

Visitor Again: "My client had one of his names wrong, his date of birth wrong by a couple of months and his place of birth wrong, but he had his parents right and that was enough for a diligent search to pay off."

Are we supposed to be surprised or concerned that it's difficult to prove you're eligible to vote if you don't know your own name, your own date of birth, or where you were born?
1.5.2007 9:30am
Broken Quanta (mail) (www):
"The fact is, whether it is their fault or not, many of the poor do not have photo id at hand, and some of them do not have the means to acquire it."

OK. And some of them are in prison or stoned out of their minds on election day, "whether it is their fault or not." Should they be allowed to vote, too? Maybe, maybe not. You can take either side, I suppose. But it simply will not do to invoke "the fact" that some poor people have robbed liquor stores as the end of debate about the extent to which we should shield them from the consequences of these bad decisions.

Again: the people you describe find themselves disenfranchised by the undesireable consequences of their own poor decisions. So, the relevant question is, to what extent should the rest of us relinquish our power (through allowing fraudulent votes that offset our own) to shield these people from the consequences of their mistakes? If you care about your disorgnized friends so much, you had better "give a rat's ass" how much I and everyone else cares as well, because our level of caring about them will determine how we choose to answer this question.

As an aside: invoking deep, dark, scary Mississippi as a sort of rhetorical trump card will not work with me. ("For the love of God, some people are from Mississippi! How can you deny that there's no way they could possily have their papers in order?!") You see, I'm from Mississippi myself, and can assure you that navigating county bureaucracies is quite easy there --- as proven by your own example of the helpful clerk, a common species in the South that is on the brink of extinction in other areas of the country.
1.5.2007 9:43am
Bpbatista (mail):
For those against an ID requirement, I offer a compromise: IDs will be required for any voter registered by ACORN -- the liberal outfit that has had workers indicted in at least two jurisdictions for fraudulent voter registration. In Ohio in 2004 an ACORN worker was given crack cocaine in return for fraudulent voter registrations including registrations for Marry Poppins, Dick Tracy and Jive Turkey.
1.5.2007 9:56am
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
This at least overlooks Article I, § 2 of the Constitution, which provides for popular election of the House of Representatives, the Article IV, § 4 guaranty to every state of a republican form of government, and the Seventeenth Amendment, providing for popular election of senators.


That’s interesting but what does it have to do with JunkYardLawDog’s point that there is nothing in the constitution which requires a popular vote of the general population to pick the President?
1.5.2007 10:01am
John M. Perkins (mail):
Why someone would not renew a drivers license?-
top of my head aided by the failure of a very similar law to get past the courts in Georgia.

Primarily because they can no longer drive.
Got to old, and child/doctor got judge/dmv to revoke.
New physical disability.
Driving Under the Influence.
Too many speeding points.
Cannot afford the required proof of insurance.
Moved to Atlanta, and MARTA is good enough.
And cited in Georgia lawsuits, many rural folks allowed to drive farm vehicles without a license.

My personal bias is that I don't like these laws adding an additional ban to pre-existing voters. If you are on the books, you should be able to vote by non picture ID. New registrants should have to go through the hoops to prove themselves and upon such proof, be issued a free voter ID. Particularly in Georgia where any new, renewed or change of address of a driver's license comes with an opportunity to register to vote. So that's a fee for the license to drive, but a freebie to vote. Every state except North Dakota requires pre-registration to vote, and pre-registration requires proof of id in some fashion. That's the time to give out voter ids. Grandfather everybody else.

Politically, I don't like the Indiana/Georgia law because it is openly a partisan issue. The Republicans want picture ID, the Democrats want the picture ID or notarization for absentees. Neither wants the other.

Personal note. After a hospital fire in Alexandria, Virginia I cannot get a certified birth certified. No problem since I had a military dependent's id at the time, which got me a passport and early driver's licenses. So I moved to Georgia in December 2001. Georgia wouldn't accept my then current Oklahoma driver's license. Georgia wouldn't accept my recently expired passport because it was expired. That same passport allowed me to fly 9/18/2001. My one and only option was to renew my passport. The passport office asked me why I was renewing. They then laughed and called the DMV "idiots." Now imagine the hoops if I didn't have a previous passport.

Interestingly enough, while waiting for my new passport, I registered to vote using the Oklahoma license and Georgia utility bill.
1.5.2007 10:01am
Costco Member:
If I don't have my Costco card when visiting Costco, they require a photo ID from me before I can make a purchase.

Those f*$#ing RACISTS!

;P
1.5.2007 10:11am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
My daughter, when living in California, needed a passport or birth certificate to get a drivers license. Her native friends told her that requiring the same of darker persons whose first language is not English is actually illegal.

True? Anybody know?

And if this is true, is the same true of voting registration?
1.5.2007 10:26am
Hans Gruber (www):
"If we are shooting for a 100% fraud free election then you may have a relevant point but a non-photo ID is enough of a hurdle to ensure that material instances of in person voter fraud will not occur."

Who the hell are you to decide what is material or not? People don't want non-citizens voting. That's not racist or unreasonble in the slightest. Bring a photo ID (if you drove to the polling station, you should have one anyway). It has nothing to do with disenfranchisement, it has to do with ensuring the integrity of the vote.
1.5.2007 10:29am
Hans Gruber (w