Will Supreme Court Abandon Voter Rights?
Published by Fred Soto• January 15th, 2008
RSS News Feed
Who needs voting rights anyway, especially when the people affected are going to vote for Democrats anyway!
The Supreme Court heard arguments related to voter rights and Voter ID laws, last week.
The Law in Indiana is shown to disenfranchise large numbers of voters that are currently without driver’s license. This is particularly significant to poor and minority voters because many don’t have driver’s licenses and I’d be willing to bet that their vehicle ownership is much lower than any other class or white counterparts. This is a big deal for a number of reasons, but the less obvious reason is that America and the judicial system have joined forces to deny rights to disenfranchised people in America that it once defended without hesitation.
Shaking Up The Supreme Court
Many experts and pundits, including myself, were quick to voice opposition to the latest shakeup of the Supreme Court. It wasn’t a matter of qualification, which is typically the reason for such outrage. Instead, the reason for the anger had to do with the polarization of politics, government and now our judicial system. With the additions of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito, this shift in the court’s thinking was expected.
The cries of liberal and progressive activists throughout the world have been heard over the months. However, it doesn’t stop at liberal America. Libertarians that were once at the heart of the Republican party have been ostracized and laughed at by the new wave of conservative heroes that have taken over the party and rattled American leadership.
Here’s an excerpt from a NY Times Op-ed article on “Abandoning the Rights of Voters“:
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.
Until now.
Manipulating Outcomes: Diluting the Votes
Texas
Only a few years ago, I started to recognize this trend myself. In Texas, redistricting is a hot issue and it is often the GOP that is leading the way in attempting to disenfranchise voters and force the state to permanently swing towards Republicans. It seems an odd strategy to me, considering that Texas is already a strong conservative State and doesn’t look to become liberal any time soon.
California
California is another example of a State that Republican special interest groups are targeting. If you haven’t heard, there is an effort to change the state from the traditional electoral system (Winner-takes-all) to a popular kind of system that would dish out electoral votes based on the proportion of votes each party earns. California presents an interesting case because of the amount of electoral votes it carries. By splitting up the vote and diluting the Democratic stronghold in California, it could help ensure that the Presidency remains in the hands of Republicans forever.
Historically, as the NY Times piece argued, the Supreme Court has been in favor of encouraging strong democratic ideals:
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.
What is with Republicans and Voting, why is this a “Conservative” problem?
Haven’t Democrats equally tried to disenfranchise Republican voters in the past? If the answer is No, then why not? Is this just a matter of one party deciding that the ends justify the means? How is it that our legal system is getting involved in this mess? Is this a political question that the courts need to stay away from? Will the Supreme Court facilitate the GOP’s desire for dominance at the top of American leadership? More importantly, is this a true conspiracy unfolding before our very eyes or is this another case of liberals overreacting because this time they are on the outside looking in?
Fred Soto is an Attorney and Entrepreneur from the Silicon Valley.
Email this author | All posts by Fred Soto
It’s called a state ID. Anyone can get one–even if you’re not of legal voting age. Look into it, no one’s being “disenfranchised”.
“The Law in Indiana is shown to disenfranchise large numbers of voters that are currently without driver’s license.”
Actually, untrue. I don’t think there’s been an election in Indiana since the law went into effect. Until there’s an election all there can be is a projection of alleged disparate impact - or as you say disenfranchisement.
Still - One cannot write a check, board a plane, buy liquor or cigarettes without proof of age. Why not require one to do the same for something so important as voting? If we all agree that ensuring accuracy in this most important of processes is a legitimate interest worth protecting, please tell me a less restrictive way of doing so and I’ll consider it. Until then requiring ID seems awfully reasonable.
These voter laws require no more I.D. than the same poor person requires to cash their welfare check. So there goes that argument.
Interesting that you point out Republicans efforts to redistrict Texas to their liking and their efforts change the electoral college process in California, but fail to mention the pro-Democrat districts in California and the calls by liberals throughout the country after Bush’s 1st victory to do away with the Electoral College altogether in favor of a strict popular vote. I also enjoyed what seems to be a rhetorical question at the end of the piece, insinuating that Democrats have never stooped to strict politicking. The question is asked, then without any sort of answer, presumed to be “no”. Well reasoned Fred. Do they let you win court cases without actually making an argument?
Yes they are -= fuck ID’s…
That’s not a conspiracy. A conspiracy is when voting averages are significantly different depending on whether they are being counted by hand or by machine.
Regardless of how easy it is to comply with these new laws, this is still unnecessary legislation that only adds restrictive red tape to an otherwise simple process. And this coming at a time when people of all ideologies are looking for any excuse to stay home on election day, and voter turnout is steadily declining.
In the 230 year history of the United States, identity fraud has never been a problem at the polls, so how can you use this non-issue justify a fundamental, restrictive change in who is allowed to vote?
You talk about how easy it is to get an ID. How about the ease with which you can get a fake ID? Or how easy it would be turn someone away on polling day on suspicion that their ID is not legitimate?
Think about it. Using the old system, many things would have to fall into place in order to pull off just ONE case of voter fraud…
A) The perp would have to know the full name and polling place of a registered voter,
B) They would have to know that this person was not going to vote in said election,
C) They would have to be able to adequately forge this person’s signature,
D) They would have get lucky and hope that the volunteers working at the polling place do not know the voter they were replacing, AND that nobody in the area would recognize their true identity,
E) Et cetera…
I’m not saying it’s impossible, but very unlikely… and as I said before - it has NEVER been a problem in the past.
* And Jake, actually you are the one who has uttered an untruth. This law went into effect well before the 2006 Indiana General Elections.
…and I may add that this legislation also serves to distract us from issues that are MUCH more important. We shouldn’t be wasting our time debating stupid, partisan policies like this. Our top priority should be finding and implementing one standard voting process that is simple, accurate, and 100% tamper-proof.
LVA:
There cannot be a standard voting process. The entire voting process is a state’s right, and it is up to each state to define their own voting process. It would be possible for the Federal government to come implement limited requirements, and possibly a recommended procedure. However, the Constitution would have to be ammended to allow the Federal government to implement a standard voting process.
So how do you plan on fighting voter fraud without requiring ID? Just take their word for it that they are who they say they are, just because there is a name on the list that matches the one they say is theirs? So what happens when someone votes in your name before you get to the polls? What happens when party operatives find a list of people who didn’t show up to the last election, and then cast votes in their names because they didn’t have an ID?Voter fraud has always been a problem, and now you’re going to advocate making it even harder to deal with in the era of Diebold and Rove?
You are daft. Absolutely daft.
ID’s aren’t going to have an affect on the greater danger of hackable voting and vote counting machines.
This blog is garbage. This guy sees the world through liberal glasses.
Why isn’t California district lines mentioned like Texas was? Because it benefits Democrats!
“I’d be willing to bet that their vehicle ownership is much lower than any other class or white counterparts.”
You would lose your bet. Liberal BS.
Dear Jake,
Go fuck yourself. who cares what you think.
@Phuk Hue - that’s mighty progressive of you. Thanks for the suggestion.
@LVA - If I was mistaken as to this specific statute’s effective date I apologize. Please, if you will, inform me as to the correct effective date. It should be of little trouble to you since it occurred well before the 2006 Indiana general election. Thanks in advance.
I was disenfranchised when I was in college, the first time I was old enough to vote. I think it was when Clinton was reelected for his second term. I received my absentee ballot in the mail on thursday evening when I checked my mail after class and dinner. On opening the envelope, I found it was due at the courhouse in my hometown no later than 8AM Friday, the very next day. Yea, what chance was there of me getting anything INTO the mail system after 7:30PM, let alone having it delivered so early the next day? Zero. I’m a white republican from Pennsylvania at the time, from a very very red dot in PA where some people are known to check public record and make sure job applicants are also R’s before hiring them, so I’d find it hard to believe the reds were conspiring against me. (Though I did check off Ross Perot and send it back anyway, so I’m not a very “committed to the cause” R like my dad is)
LVA:
A) Easily obtained through public records (telephone book, voter registration district information)
B) Voter is dead/infirm/in a nursing home/out of the district/going to be working early in the morning
C) I’ve never had my signature compared to anything when I voted before, so competent forgery is not required
D) Not a problem in most urban or suburban districts
All you have to do is show up right when the poll opens with the information about someone who you know will not be voting (or will not be voting yet due to work or school conflicts). Pretend to be them, mark your ballot and submit it. If the real person does show up later, how are they going to know how the impostor voted to reverse it? The real person gets a provisional ballot (maybe) but it will likely not get counted.
BTW, I believe that all states that require ID will waive any fees associated with them if you can prove hardship (such as being on public assistance) so there is no disenfranchisement there.
How about actually doing some research on the law in question before you post your garbage? A DRIVER’S LICENSE IS NOT REQUIRED TO VOTE IN INDIANA. Only a state issued ID, which can be obtained for FREE. Try again, dunce. This time, do your research.
http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/how.html
“If you do not possess an ID that is acceptable for voting purposes, PL 109-2005 requires the BMV to issue an Indiana State ID Card free of charge.”
While I think Republicans like Delay and Cheney seem capable of voter fraud, this FEAR that people who pay no taxes, but who, instead, collect benefits at the expense and through the generosity of those who do pay taxes, and are so primitive that they could not figure out how to vote with a punchcard system, will not get to vote again, is not at the top of my list.
@LVA - It was bugging me so I looked it up:
“The Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the 2005 law before it went into effect, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional on its face and could not be enforced even against the majority of Indiana voters who could easily produce the required photo ID.”
see: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/washington/10scotus.html?hp
I guess I didn’t utter an untruth per se. The law would have gone into effect but for the challenge. As it stands it has not gone into effect and we don’t know whether there has been any disparate impact on poor/minority/elderly voters. I stand by my original statement above.
Democrats just want to make it easier for illegal aliens to vote. If they had their way, anyone who simply shows up would be given a ballot.