Supreme Court upholds Indiana voter ID law

Voter fraud is practically nonexistent, an infinitesimal percentage by anyone's measure. (Far less frequent, I am sure, than Republican tampering with Diebold electronic voting machines.) The push for IDs is a Republican-backed effort to make it more difficult for those voters who traditionally vote Democratic. It's just what we would expect from Bush's Supreme Court. But I find it not a little reprehensible on a blog purporting to be Christian that you would support a measure that seeks to deny the poor a voice in our elections. Do you read your Bible for anything other than proof-texting? I suggest you look up a few of the thousands of references to the poor and think again about why you support this restrictive and oppressive measure.

In the meantime, here is some valuable information from ProjectVote.

"Eleven percent of Americans surveyed in a recent survey commissioned by the Brennan Center for Justice do not have government-issued photo ID, such as driver’s licenses or state-issued non-driver’s photo ID. According to U.S. Census data, that amounts to greater than 214 million citizens. Those without photo ID are disproportionately the elderly, students, women, people with disabilities, low income people and people of color.5
• Women are more than twice as likely than men not to have a drivers’ license.
• One of every five senior women does not have a license.
• Of all Americans without a license:
o One-fifth are 18-24 year olds;
o Over one-third are seniors;
o Over 70% are women.6
A Wisconsin study revealed that African Americans are half as likely to have driver’s licenses as whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. In Georgia, researchers found that 36% of citizens over age 75 did not have a driver’s license.7
Even among those that do have driver’s licenses, a substantial percentage does not show their current address. Again, this is even more the case among lower income Americans who move more frequently.8
If an ID card such as a driver’s license does not contain the voter’s current address, which is true of millions of Americans, he or she is likely to be turned away from the polls. In Wisconsin, for example, 97% of all students do not have their current address on their photo ID.9 If an eligible voter forgets to bring ID, some states will not give them a provisional ballot, and most that do will not count those provisional ballots. This undermines an important “safety net” under the Help America Vote Act.
There is also some question as to whether strict identification laws can even be implemented without effectively shutting down voter registration. Arizona has attempted to implement a very strict form of identification - proof of citizenship at the time of registration. In the first six months of 2005, more than 5,000 Arizona citizens had their voter registrations rejected for failing to provide adequate proof of citizenship.10
Challenges Obtaining Identification
While it may seem benign to require voters to present a state-issued photo ID, in fact, there are multiple barriers to obtaining this ID. For those who are most likely not to have the identification, it is a significant burden to obtain the necessary back-up documentation, take time off during business hours, find transportation to offices that issue the ID, and find the funds for application fees and transportation.
Beyond the costs of money and time, voters face other barriers as well. Most states require a government-issued birth certificate (or the equivalent, such as a US passport) in order to issue a state ID. Many citizens do not have a birth certificate or, if they do, they have one issued by a hospital, not a state or local government. There are often fees associated with ordering a birth certificate, ranging from $7 to $26, and paradoxically, many state agencies require photo identification in order to obtain a birth certificate.
A study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that low-income people, African-Americans, the elderly, those without high school diplomas, and rural residents are much more likely not to have a passport or birth certificate available.11 It is important to note that these are self-reported responses and therefore underestimate the problem. Many people believe that their hospital birth certificate is enough, while obtaining state-issued ID generally requires a government-issued birth certificate."

"Far less frequent, I am sure, than Republican tampering with Diebold electronic voting machines."

Where's your proof? And btw, the Democrats have control of the machines in my state, do you think they're messing with them too?

i know plenty of people who are registered to vote, but don't have a photo ID, and so far haven't had a need to get one. so, while this may disenfranchise a couple of dead people per million votes (and golly, we should be afraid of how that may sway the election) how many live people will it disenfranchise?

I see nobody has a response to Michelle's question about 100% turnout in unionized Democratic strongholds. Surprise, surprise.

ZZ: "I see nobody has a response to Michelle's question about 100% turnout in unionized Democratic strongholds. Surprise, surprise."

I assume you mean this question: "Then how can there be 100% turnout in many of the districts in Baltimore and Philiadelphia?"

Fine...let's play the game. Which districts and which elections? Where is the meat on this?

Citizens who are genuinely concerned about voting fraud should go to BlackBoxVoting.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization which is funded by private donations. Below is a statement given to the Election Assistance Commission from Bev Harris, founder of Black Box Voting.

EAC VOTING ADVOCATES ROUND TABLE: April 24, 2008

I have accepted your invitation to submit the following comments to be entered into the record on behalf of Black Box Voting, by its founder, Bev Harris.

To members of the EAC and participants of the Round Table:

The entire premise of technology-based elections is based on support for the "verifiable voting" concept. But before designing technology for elections, we must first determine how it will empower citizen controls, enabling the counting of votes in public rather than counting them in secret. We do not consent to any form of secret vote counting, administered and controlled by government insiders and their vendors.

Any system that forces the citizenry to trust government insiders to count their votes represents a change in the original design of this nation. The United States of America was designed to uphold the right of citizen sovereignty over the government. In addition to hiding the counting of votes from public view, computer-counted elections hide the chain of custody of the vote data. Citizens are never allowed to view the original input in order to compare it to the output, and are relegated to trusting circumstantial evidence controlled by insiders. Such a system is, in fact, a transfer of power.

The people were never asked to approve such a transfer of power, have never consented to it, and indeed cannot consent, because the right of sovereignty over the instruments of government which we have created is an inalienable right, one which cannot be given away, nor can this right be removed through legislation. It is, admittedly, possible for a government to decline to honor this right, but such an act would justify extreme measures by the people subjected to such abuse of power.

It is the public counting that is key to citizen sovereignty, not computer verification. "Verification" of a computer report is not at all the same as public vote counting.

The core of elections was and again must return to the principle of citizen sovereignty over government. Elections can never be based on a requirement to trust government insiders and their vendors to count our votes, nor can elections be dependent on experts to tell the citizenry that the system is okay, nor should the detailed mechanics of elections be impossible for the average citizen to understand. Models which depend on experts and insiders create centralized control, and remove all control from government's rightful owners – the citizens. This represents a violation of the principles laid out in the Declaration of Independence.

Not only does my organization, Black Box Voting, refuse to participate in the design of such systems, but we will do our utmost to inform the populace that such systems must be revoked, by whatever means necessary.

"We do not consent."

Bev Harris
Black Box Voting
330 SW 43rd St Suite K
PMB 547
Renton WA 98057

Me: "Papers, please?"

Moonshadow: I believe it goes "Ihre Papiere, bitte!?!"

LOL...the versions I watched were dubbed with English. :-)

Presenting an ID to vote actually seems pretty reasonable to me. When I vote the poll workers ask me my name and try to verify my identity by asking me where I live. So this is basically more of them same.

I also suspect that ballot box stuffing by corrupt poll workers is the cause of anomalies likes dead people voting and so forth. So this law won't prevent that, but we'll see what kind of an impact it has.

TM: "When people say they are concerned about showing picture ID to Vote I don't believe them. Today, you cannot complete fininacial transactions without it a picture ID. So, what is the problem?"

Actually I can complete a financial transaction without any ID. I simply use cash. I can use cash to purchase a fake ID, which I can then use to vote in the state of Indiana.

Also, it is worth noting that those who vote absentee by mail are not required to show ID.

www.in.gov/sos/elections/absentee.html

But the core of the problem lies in the fact that there have been zero, zip, nada cases of in-person voting fraud in the state of Indiana...ever. The voter fraud has involved absentee balloting. At no time has there been a case of in-person voter fraud in the state.

For that matter, can someone show me where there has been a case of in-person voter fraud anywhere in the US? I know of none, but surely there is a case somewhere, since everyone is so anxious to get some form of voter ID starting. After all, there MUST be a problem somewhere, so surely someone can show me where this is happening.

Please remember that this solution will do nothing to address instances of real voter fraud; absentee ballot fraud and ballot box stuffing. Neither of these are done in person, so they will not be affected by the ID law.

What we have here is a feel-good law enacted to appease folks who have come to distrust their election system. Fixing the real problems, from real instances of voter fraud to real concerns about voting equipment, are left for later...as usual.

Over 21 million Americans don't have state-issued photo ID. Remember, the Indiana law said you cannot use the following to prove who you are:
- utility bills or paychecks
- student photo ID
- expired drivers license
- employer issued photo ID
- medicare card
- social security card
- voter registration card

Sure you can go to the DMV for a state-issued ID. You know, in the car you can't afford, with the driver's license you don't have, using time off work without pay because the DMV closes at 5 on weekdays. Have we hit "unfair burden" yet?