Voter-ID Laws and discriminatory intent

PSC 1010
American National Government

The Voter-ID Laws is one of the hot issues in contemporary American Politics. Supporters of the Voter-ID Laws say they are needed to prevent voter fraud. Opponents say they discriminate against the poor, elderly and minorities. Opponents also argue that the Voter-ID Laws are against the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Four principles of the Fourteenth Amendments are: 1. State and federal citizenship for all persons regardless of race both born or naturalized in the United States was reaffirmed. 2. No state would be allowed to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of citizens. 3. No person was allowed to be deprived of life, liberty,or property without "due process of law." 4. No person could be denied "equal protection of the laws." (Kelly)
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 “prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act.” (The United States Department of Justice) 34 states have adopted some kind of voter ID law, which comes in several different variations: * Strict voter ID law requires voters to provide a valid ID. * Non-Strict voter ID law does not require a valid ID but the voters are permitted to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. * A Photo voter ID, voters must show an accepted ID with their photo at the polls. * Non-Photo voter ID is a wide array of IDS that are acceptable for voting purpose, some of which do not include a photo of the voter. (Berardelli)
In 2005, the Indiana Legislature passed a law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana containing an expiration date. (Craford v. Marion County Election Board) During Indiana’s 2006 primary election, Representative Julia Carson (D-IN) was initially blocked from voting for failing to comply with Indiana’s voter identification law. She was identified herself with her congressional ID card but turned away at the polls because the ID card did not include an expiration date. (Goldstein) Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in Crawford v. Marion County election Board that examples of voter fraud “have been documented throughout our nation’s history by respected historians and journalists which demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real, but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.” The main argument of Pro-Vote ID Law is there is a possibility of vote fraud. According to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, his office has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud in recent years. He said, “I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system. (Anand) However, there have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction. According to the article of New York Times, about 120 people were charged and 86 were convicted in 2006. “Most of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyer show.” (Lipton) An assistant United States attorney in Miami said “many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.” (Lipton)
On April 29, 2014, Wisconsin federal district court Judge Lynn Adelman ruled the state’s voter ID law, which was temporarily enjoined in 2012. Judge Adelman found that 300,000 registered voters and about 9 percent of registered voters lacked the government issued ID required by the state to cast a ballot. The Judge Adelman wrote, “In 2010, the race for governor in Wisconsin was decided by 124,638 votes, and the race for United States Senator was decided by 105,041 votes. Thus, the number of registered voters who lack a qualifying ID is large enough to change the outcome of Wisconsin elections.” (Berman) The Judge Adelman found that the voter ID law had a clear discriminatory issue. He said,” The evidence adduced at trial demonstrates that this unique burden disproportionately impact Black and Latino voters. Data from the 2012 election showed that African American voters in Wisconsin were 1.7 times as likely as white voters to lack a matching driver’s license or state ID and that Latino voter in Wisconsin were 2.6 times as likely as white voters to lack these forms of identification.” (Berman) However, On October 6, 2014, A U.S. appeals court in Chicago said Wisconsin’s 2012 voter identification law is constitutional. The new rule will be into effect at midterm election on Nov. 4. The judges ruled, “Both the prevention of voter impersonation on Election Day and the preservation of public confidence in the integrity of elections justify a photo ID requirement.” The judges also said,” the inconvenience of getting the requirements for an ID and getting the ID itself do not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote.” (Ortiz)
According to “The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification” published by Brennan Center for Justice, Ten states, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin have restrictive voter ID laws. In the book, “more than 1 million eligible voters in these states do not have access to a vehicle and live more than 10 miles from the nearest state ID-issuing office more than two days a week. Many of them live in rural areas with dwindling public transportation options. They also fall below the federal poverty line.” Vote ID law will make it harder for hundreds of thousands of poor Americans to vote. (Gaskins)
The problem is that Vote ID law requires ID that many voters simply do not have. The study confirms that 1 in 10 eligible voters lack these specific government documents to make proper ID. (Gaskins)

Works Cited
Anand, Priya. “Q&A: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on the Voter ID Law.” The Houston Chronicle. Blog.chron.com. 8 Jul. 2012. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Berardelli, Gene. “Hard Evidence Supports the Need for Voter ID Laws.” California Election Center.Ivn.us. 16 Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Berman, Ari. “Federal Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Wisconsin Voter ID Law.” The Nation. Thenation.com. 29 Apr. 2014. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Oyez.org. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Gaskins, Keesha and Iyer Sundeep. “ The Challenge of Obtaining Voter Identification.” Brennan Center for Justice. Brennancenter.org. 18 Jul. 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2014.
Goldstein, Amy. (Democrats Predict Voter ID Problems.” Washington post. Washingtonpost.com, 3 Nov. 2006. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Kelly, Martin. “14th Amendments Summary.” About.com. americanhistory.about.com, Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Lipton, Eric and Urbina, Ian. “In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud.” New York Times. Nytimes.com. Web. 12 April, 2007.
Ortiz, Fiona. “Appeal court says Wisconsin voter ID law constitutional.” Chicago Tribune. Chicagotribune.com. 6 Oct. 2014. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
The United States Department of justice. “Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.” Justice.gov. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.