I'm much more concerned about absentee voting fraud than about in person fraud. But I don't see how requiring an affidavit can deal with any issue of impersonation at the polling place. If I'm impersonating a registered voter, why wouldn't I be willing to sign an affidavit under that person's name? How would anyone link me with the false affidavit if I didn't use my own name? Perhaps poll workers could identify me, or perhaps a photo could be taken of me when I sign the affidavit or my thumb print could be required (though I think that would be resisted vigorously), but otherwise why would I worry about signing the affidavit? By assumption, I'm already willing to break the law by impersonating someone else in order to vote in that person's place, and presumably I already think it's highly unlikely I'll be identified as someone who impersonated someone else.
Or perhaps the idea is that we would match up the signature on the affidavit with the signature used when the voter registered. But if that is the idea, why require an affidavit? A simple signature would suffice. (In California we have to sign in to vote in person anyway.)
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
________________________________________
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu [election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Denise Lieberman [dlieberman@advancementproject.org]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 4:25 PM
To: jon.roland@constitution.org; Vince Leibowitz
Cc: Election Law
Subject: Re: [EL] Voter ID expert for interview today
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 federal 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
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law