I am skeptical of voter ID requirements (at least, where no-fauld absentee ballots are permitted), but I disagree with Mr. Leib as a matter of language.  It is useful to have one way of expressing an on-off position and another for matters of degree.  Thus, we distinguish between a regular switch, which turns a light off, and a rheostat, which dims the light.  Requirements that make it more difficult to vote are best referred to as burdens on the right to vote.  Burdens can range from trivial to heavy.  An (absurdly) extreme burden such as the one Mr. Leib hypothesizes can be referred to as a burden tantamount to disfranchisement, just as it is possible to turn down the rheostat so far that it is tantamount to turning off the light.  The claim that any obstacle (burden) to voting is a step towards disfranchisement is an empirical claim and is, I think, clearly wrong.
 
         With respect to the current Indiana controversy, it has not been made clear in this discussion whether the disallowance of the veterans' photo ID on the ground that it contains no expiration date was a correct application of state law.  Whether or not it was, it is indefensible, regardless of one's position on voter ID.  Therefore, it is not much of an argument against voter ID, though there is some validity in Mr. Leib's point that any requirement creates the need for bureaucratic decisionmaking, which creates the possibility of bad judgment and error.  That point is not dispositive, because it could be made equally against any requirement, but it is a point that should be taken into account with respect to all regulations.
 
 
          Best,
 
          Daniel Lowenstein
          UCLA Law School
          405 Hilgard
          Los Angeles, California 90095-1476
          310-825-5148

________________________________

From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of DemEsqNYC@aol.com
Sent: Sat 5/6/2006 7:50 AM
To: JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law


Jason:
 
With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the nature of disenfranchisement.  If I am allowed to vote by walking into my living room any day I want and pushing a button, but you have to go to Alaska and vote in a 20 minute window on one day of the year, in esperanto on by chiseling your vote into granite, have you been technically disenfranchised, perhaps not.  Have you been practically disenfranchised, certainly.  
 
The extreme nature of the example above not withstanding, everything else is a matter of degree, but the principal is the same.  Any obstacle thrown up in the path of an otherwise qualified voter is a step towards disenfranchisement.  The fact that the vets chose not to jump through the hoops and over the obstacles put in their way does not change the fact that they were disenfranchised.  They showed up to vote, they were not allowed to vote.
 
The fact that these voters were veterans is significant only in one aspect.  They had a government issued photo ID, it just wasn't the RIGHT government issued photo ID card.  This goes to show the absurdity of the entire voter ID system.  It makes the right to vote contingent on bureaucratic niceties rather than on whether there is any realistic question as to the voter's identity.
 
Your references to military votes in Florida are, of course, irrelevant to this debate.  I will note that the people who now do not see a problem with these vets being excluded were on the other side of the issue then (and vis a versa).  
 
What disturbs me the most is your reference to "at most, 170,000 people" as if this was a negligible and unimportant number.  By my fast and dirty calculations, this is about 4% of the voting age population in Missouri.  Even if the number were considerably smaller, I will remind you that the Voter ID movement was founded on the mere rumor of a possibility that someone somewhere might be voting fraudulently.  There is virtually no proof of anyone, anywhere voting in person under someone else's ID (absentee balloting is another story).  If potentially 170,000 people being disenfranchised in a single, not particularly populous state is not significant, then why are we at all concerned about the voter fraud issue.
 
It seems to me it always comes back to whether you view voting as a right or a privilege.  To me that is easy, it is not only a right, it is a duty.  It should not be reserved to those rich enough, educated enough, or just aware enough to possess (and carry) the right ID, it is for all of us, even those mere 170,000 "undocumented voters" in Missouri.
 
Howard Leib