A Stitch in Haste

The New York Times is concerned about Georgia's new "voter ID law" requiring a government-issued ID (not necessarily a drivers license) at the polling place. The law, the Times avers without proof, is actually intended to disenfranchise poor and black voters rather than to reduce voter fraud --

The new law's supporters claim that it is an attempt to reduce voter fraud, but Secretary of State Cathy Cox has said she cannot recall a single case during her tenure when anyone impersonated a voter.
...
Georgia's new identification requirement is part of a nationwide drive to erect barriers at the polls. Indiana also recently passed a new photo-identification requirement, and several other states, including Ohio, are considering the addition of such requirements.

There are many steps states can take to reduce election fraud. But laws that condition voting on having a particular piece of identification that many eligible voters do not possess have no place in a democracy.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

I certainly accept the premise that a facially neutral law can burden the poor more than the rich. Banning people from sleeping under bridges comes to mind.

But an equally fundamental principle also applies when discussing voting: With rights come responsibilities.

There is a fundamental difference, which the Times fails to acknowledge, between rules that keep eligible voters away from the polls and those that keep ineligible voters away. To analogize a voter ID law to the truly disenfranchising maneuvers of the past — such as property ownership requirements, literacy tests or poll taxes — is an insult to the past victims of those now-abolished restrictions.

The Times strings together a long daisy chain of straw man arguments in opposing voter ID:

--Poor, elderly, and black voters may not have drivers licenses. So what? These laws require government IDs, not drivers licenses. It's hard to imagine that wide swaths of any electorate not only don't have drivers licenses but also no acceptable alternative. This is the 21st Century and the post-9/11 world, after all. And of course just because these people don't have proper ID doesn't mean they can't get proper ID.

--Voter ID does nothing to prevent absentee ballot fraud. So what? It's not designed to prevent absentee ballot fraud, but rather ineligible voter fraud.

--Voter impersonation does not appear to be a rampant problem. So what? Again, the problem isn't Person A pretending to be Person B, but rather Person A pretending to be qualified to vote in the first place. Voter ID does help prevent that kind of fraud, through eliminating multiple voting and curbing voting by non-citizens.

If the New York Times is so concerned about "hitting the target" when it comes to voter fraud, then it need look no further than its own backyard and condemn the single biggest voter fraud of our time, the "Snowbird vote" in which retirees illegally cast votes in both New York (especially New York City) and Florida. See my previous post. The Times' silence on the Snowbird vote is not only deafening, but inexcusably hypocritical in light of its indignation over this Georgia law that might inconvenience (not disenfranchise, but inconvenience) a handful of voters at most.

And imposing the eminently reasonable responsibility of proving your identity at the voting booth is not so outrageous or so clearly correlated with income or race as to run afoul of the Voting Rights Act. In our national agglomeration of often dysfunctional election systems, voter ID is a modest first step toward rationalizing this important cornerstone of our democracy.

Tomorrow: Atlanta's anti-panhandling law.

A new Georgia law that requires a valid photo ID to vote has been cleared by the Department of Justice, a necesary requirement for changes to voting laws in certain states under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I previously blogged in support of the law.

The law is still subject to court challenges, which opponents are now preparing:

"The decision to clear the measure now gives Georgia the most draconian voter identification requirement in the nation," said Daniel Levitas of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project in Atlanta.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a veteran of the civil rights movement, said, "It is unbelievable, it is unreal the Department of Justice — an agency who is supposed to protect the American public by enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 — is now involved in attempts to weaken the act.

"This decision takes us back to the dark past of literacy tests and other insidious devices that were carefully devised to hamper the participation of all of our citizens in the political process," Lewis said.

Showing a drivers license or other photo ID is "draconian"?

And the analogy betwen voter ID and literacy tests is flat-out invalid. As I blogged previously:

There is a fundamental difference ... between rules that keep eligible voters away from the polls and those that keep ineligible voters away. To analogize a voter ID law to the truly disenfranchising maneuvers of the past — such as property ownership requirements, literacy tests or poll taxes — is an insult to the past victims of those now-abolished restrictions.

As with the seemingly endless debate over Florida 2000, there is an important difference between "make every vote count" and "make every valid vote count." By the same token, there is an important difference between impeding eligible voters, which this law does not, and impeding ineligble voters, which this law does.

The Justice Department was right to clear this patently reasonable and intelligent law, and there is no reason for any court to invalidate it.

I blogged back in July about a new law Georgia law that requires a government ID in order to vote in person. I was, and still am, generally supportive of the law, which does nothing more than reinforce the principle that it's not "make every vote count," but rather "make every valid vote count."

Is it any surprise that the New York Times disagrees?

People with driver's licenses are fine. But many people without them have to buy a state ID card to vote, at a cost of $20 for a five-year card or $35 for 10 years. The cards are sold in 58 locations, in a state with 159 counties. It is outrageous that Atlanta does not have a single location. (The state says it plans to open one soon.) But the burden is also great on people in rural parts of the state.

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

First of all, the people in "rural parts of the state" almost certainly all own or have access to cars or other transportation.

And for those few who don't, we're talking about $3.50 per year.

And anyone who declares on a form that they're indigent can have the fee automatically waived. No proof required.

If that's the current state of "oppression" in America, then the Times should be celebrating, not lamenting.

As for the "poll tax" histrionics -- a poll tax, by definition, is paid by everyone. The Georgia law is not a tax on voting, but rather a cost of voting. It is not incurred by everyone and indeed is hardly incurred by anyone. And the indigent are exempt.

Hardly sounds like a "national disgrace" (the Times' term).

Invoking the canard of a "poll tax," the ACLU is leading a coalition of advocacy groups to block Georgia's new Voter ID law, which I discuss in this chain.

The ACLU has some other grievances, specifically that the law:

--Violates the Fourteenth Amendment because it treats voters unequally.

--Violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act because it results in the denial of voting rights to African-American and Latino voters.

--Violates the Georgia Constitution because it creates an entirely new set of voting qualifications beyond those specified in the State Constitution.

--Violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act because it applies different standards for voters who vote in person compared to those who vote by absentee ballot and disqualifies voters based solely on whether they have a government-issued photo ID, even if they are personally known to election officials, or their signatures match the one on their official voter registration card.

The "poll tax" argument goes like this: the handful of voters who don't already have a valid ID can obtain one, valid for ten years, for $35. Somehow the ACLU thinks that equates to a "poll tax."

Of course it does not. A poll tax, by definition, is a fee that all must pay; the alternative ID surcharge is a fee that some might pay. Add to that the fact that anyone who simply declares, without any substantiation whatsoever, that they are "indigent" is automatically exempt from the ID fee, no questions asked.

That's a mighty loosey-goosey definition of "poll tax."

As for the other arguments:

--Everyone must have a valid government photo ID to vote in person. How is this "treating voters unequally"? How bizarre that the ACLU would actually in favor of "election worker discretion" to "waive people by." I would think that would work against poor voters.

--A law that happens to disproportionately affect people based on race is not, without more, illegal "discrimination." Without going into the requirements for so-called "invidious discrimination," let's just say that some form of obvious anti-black conspiracy would have to be shown — a very high burden in this instance.

--The Georgia Constitution may well afford greater rights than does federal law. But the idea that the Civil Rights Act somehow invalidates any and all differences between in-person voting and absentee balloting is specious at best.

Always remember, it's not about "making every vote count," but rather "making every valid vote count."

I have expressed my support previously for voter ID laws generally, and Georgia's controversial new law specifically. My thesis is simple: It's not about "making every vote count," but about making every valid vote count." Voter ID laws help to ensure the latter.

There might be perfectly valid reasons to oppose Georgia's voter ID law or its counterparts in other states. But claiming that requiring a photo ID is "an unconstitutional poll tax" is not one of them:

A federal judge Tuesday blocked Georgia from enforcing a new state law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls.

In issuing the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Harold Murphy said the law amounts to an unconstitutional poll tax because the state is not doing enough to make ID cards available to those who cannot afford them.

The requirement "is most likely to prevent Georgia's elderly, poor and African-American voters from voting," Murphy wrote. "For those citizens, the character and magnitude of their injury — the loss of their right to vote — is undeniably demoralizing and extreme."

This is, of course, utter nonsense.

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment prohibits "poll taxes." But what can a "poll tax" possibly mean but "a tax at the poll" — an admission fee that all people must pay to access the ballot box? An expense that some people may have to pay is by any sane definition not a "tax." If it is not a tax, then it is not unconstitutional.

Incidentally, we're talking about a card only necessary for those who don't already have a drivers license, passport or other valid ID. At it costs only $35 and is valid for ten years. And the fee is automatically waived for anyone who merely asserts, without any verification required, that they are "indigent."

Again, if this can be construed as a "tax," then so can anything.

One more thing: the Justice Department has signed off on the law as not racially motivated or discriminatory.

I never use the term "activist judge," but the jurist in this case comes mighty close.

If you play fast and loose with words, especially words like "tax," it makes consistent implementation of policy, (not to mention statutory and constitutional interpretation) difficult if not impossible. There is no basis whatsoever for using anything other than the plain language of the Constitution and reading "poll tax" as "a tax at the poll."

The judge erred on the law and should be overturned on appeal.

More thoughts at Brainlock.

I've blogged previously about my support for a controversial voter ID law in Georgia that is being challenged (so far successfully) in federal court. My thesis is straightforward: it is not about "making every vote count," but rather making every valid vote count.

Arizona, meanwhile, facing what many consider an illegal immigration crisis, has gone a step further by not only requiring ID at the polls, but also requiring proof of citizenship during the voter registration process.

While I certainly acknowledge the problems illegal immigration can have on a state, I wonder whether this measure goes too far.

Sometimes it can be quite hard for a native-born American to actually prove his citizenship (naturalized citizens of course have their naturalization papers). Other than a passport, no single document definitively demonstrates nationality except for a birth certificate, and they often do not reflect name changes; in some cases they're not even available (and are easily forged anyway).

From a cost-benefit perspective, it seems as though requiring proof of citizenship is too high a price to pay for the benefit of weeding out the fraudulent votes of illegal immigrants.

I would make a counteroffer: Simply replace the proof-of-citizenship requirement with a proof-of-identity requirement, but with a clear mandate to double-check the information provided at voter registration against other government records (e.g., tax rolls) to help identify illegal aliens in the first place. If illegal aliens know that attempting to fraudulently register to vote could risk their being caught and deported, I suspect very few would even try. Same desired effect with much less complication or controversy.

Regardless of one's particular viewpoint about our current immigration policy, or our approach to the problem of illegal immigration, all should be able to agree that it is simply despicable for an illegal alien (or anyone else, for that matter) to attempt to register to vote fraudulently. And there is consequently nothing wrong with trying to stop it. But making fraudulent voting risky, rather than difficult, can achieve prevention far more easily, and is therefore the preferable policy.