I'm a bystander in this debate, but I think the fair interpretation of what the voter said was: "When will the Democratic Party wake up? The only voters who would be 'disenfranchised' are ones who are not eligible to vote in the first place." I think that that sentiment is probably incorrect as an empirical matter. But I don't think we need to play "gotcha!" games on this list.
Similarly, in the post that started this round, Joe Sandler seemed to insinuate, when he suggested the Indiana GOP was "despicable" rather than simply misguided, that Republicans' secret motive is to deprive veterans of the vote. I've seen much disagreement among both political consultants and political scientists as to whether the veteran vote is merely reflective of the general vote, or more GOP oriented. I've seen no consultant or political scientist argue that the veteran vote tilts Democrat. Most everyday Republicans I know assume their party owns the veterans vote. Thus I find it hard to believe that the GOP wants to disenfranchise veterans, and I think a likely result of the veteran's issue will be a quick amendment to the Indiana law to allow VA IDs to suffice. That will not, I think, really satisfy those who oppose the requirement more broadly. Indeed, it will probably be cited as further evidence of Republican perfidity.
The fact is, as Jason Torchinsky points out, most Americans overwhelmingly favor a voter ID requirement. If you just want to pump up hard core Democrats, questioning the "real motive" of Republicans may work, but probably this list is not the best forum. If you want to really debate the merits or convince the undecided, I think you have to address the arguments as they are presented in favor of voter ID. It is true that one problem with these laws, - as I have often suggested is true with campaign finance laws - is that they can be and sometimes are used for political ends. But it strikes me that even that argument will be more persuasive when put forth as an inevitable consequence of the laws - not due to some uniquely evil characteristic of the partisan opposition (is it inconceivable that Democrats are also thinking about the partisan repercussions of these laws, and that that contributes to the vehemence with which they argue for something that, once again, most Amer!
icans seem to view as no big deal?)
In other words, the immediate political problem for Democrats may be that they think these voter ID laws work to their disadvantage. But that is not much of an argument for changing the law, unless the listener is a partisan Democrat. The principled reasons for opposition have been put forth by others, and ought to be debated on the merits: that these laws are subject to political manipulation (including in their administration) and thus better not enacted at all, regardless of whom they may immediately seem to favor; that they burden voters more than their proponents think, thus substantially burdening a fundamental right; and that they do very little to actually address vote fraud, thus failing to fulfill any important, neutral policy objective. I'm not sure that impugning the motives of the overwhelming majority of Americans - not just Republicans - who favor these laws advances the case much.
Bradley A. Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Columbus, OH
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com
Sent: Sun 5/7/2006 8:26 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law
A reader of The Indianapolis Star from Terre Haute may have unwittingly
revealed the Republican Party's true motives in enacting the Indiana photo
ID law. Reacting to Howard Dean's visit this week to Indianapolis at which
Dean announced the DNC's support for the Indiana Democratic Party's appeal
to the 7th Circuit, the reader, as quoted in this morning's Star, said:
"When will the Democratic Party wake up? The only voters who would be
disenfranchised [by the Indiana photo ID law] are ones who should not be
voting in the first place."
If only others who enacted or who continue to defend this dreadful law
were as candid as this plain-spoken Hoosier!
William R. Groth
Attorney for the Indiana Democratic Party
Esperanto? We couldn't even count the votes in english.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Steven J. Reyes" <sreyes@kaufmandowning.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:15:12
To:<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law
I haven't read the particulars of the IN law, but even provisions
"allowing" provisional voters to return to the county registrar with their
ID (if they have one) are problematic. In AZ, for example counties seats
are often 100+ miles from many points in the county thus entailing a 4+
hour round trip. Even if not as far in IN, this requirement creates a
practical barrier for those who didn't have a valid ID for whatever reason
(forgetfulness/registrar error/poll worker error/just moved, etc.). For
older folks and the poor, with less access to transportation, the process
becomes even more complicated. And don't forget all that time off from
work that people might have to take to do all this (if they can afford
to). The list goes on and on and on....(and for what? to "secure" the
ballot from the massive voter fraud that no one seems to be able to point
to?) As you can tell I'm not a fan of these types of voter ID laws. ---
Original Message --- From: "DemEsqNYC@aol.com" !
<DemEsqNYC@aol.com> Sent: Sat 5/6/06 8:41 am To:
"JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net" <JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net>,
"election-law@majordomo.lls.edu" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu> Cc:
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 an!
d over the obstacles put in their way does not change the fact!
that th
ey 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