My understanding is that the Texas bill does allow for ID to be provided to those who can't afford one/state they need it for voting purposes. If not, it clearly would constitute a poll tax. However, even when the ID is provided for free, these bills fail to take into account that the underlying documents necessary to procure the ID (certified birth certificate, in some cases social security card, marriage or divorce records etc) are not free, can be very costly to low-income voters, and may be difficult -- and even impossible for some -- to obtain. That is why the Missouri Supreme Court in 2006 concluded that the state's photo ID law was tantamount to a poll tax and struck the law. However, Missouri's constitution - unlike the federal constitution - expressly provides for a fundamental right to vote, thus subjecting any restrictions on that right to strict scrutiny. In the Crawford case, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that is not the case under the fed
eral constitution, !
allowing the Indiana Photo ID law to stand based on a balancing test, finding that the state had a reasonable interest in its voter ID requirements.
Clearly, states have an interest in ensuring that those who vote are eligible. That's why we have registration laws. The ID proposals in Texas and elsewhere would only apply to those already deemed eligible. Even more, it can be argued that states have a legitimate interest in ensuring that people who appear at the polling place to vote are who they say they are. But, photo ID laws that require only specific forms of non-expired state or federally issued ID are not tightly tailored to that interest, when there are many ways for people to assert they are who they say they are - through various forms of identification - and including an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury.
At the very least, these photo ID proposals should contain provisions like in Michigan that allow voters without such ID to attest via affidavit to their identity and cast a regular ballot. The proposals that allow such voters to cast provisional ballots are an insufficient saving measure and place additional burdens on voters.
Denise Lieberman, Senior Attorney
Missouri Voter Protection Advocate
Advancement Project
1220 L St. Suite 850
Washington, D.C. 20005
Cell: (314) 780-1833
dlieberman@advancementproject.org
www.advancementproject.org
________________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Jon Roland [jon.roland@constitution.org]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:21 PM
To: Vince Leibowitz
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter ID expert for interview today
As written the Texas bill is unconstitutional. Specifically, a violation of the Poll Tax Amendment, since all the government issued IDs cost a fee. It would only be constitutional if the ID cards were issued free.
It is also unconstitutional to require something be presented that everyone is not required to have. There is no constitutional authority to require everyone to have ID, not even to have a name. Historically, there have been "no-name" persons, usually referred to in court pleadings by "John Doe" or "Jane Roe" even if the person is in custody. But they are still citizens qualified to vote.
What is needed is to add to the list of ID a notary acknowledgment. That is the traditional, and constitutional, identification system. It should be updated to digital certification, tied to biometrics, but the basic principle should be "circles of trust<http://www.constitution.org/col/id_trust.htm>", not a central database. That allows identities to be altered by a few keystrokes by an anonymous clerk, perhaps changing you into a fugitive child-molester and cop-killer. Recall the movie, The Net<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Net_%281995_film%29>, starring Sandra Bullock.
-- Jon
----------------------------------------------------------
Constitution Society http://constitution.org
2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322 twitter.com/lex_rex
Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001 jon.roland@constitution.org<mailto:jon.roland@constitution.org>
----------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law