Printer Friendly

No I.D. no vote? Is requiring a photo I.D. a reasonable measure against fraud, or a deterrent to voting? The Supreme Court is Iikely to decide this spring.

On Election Day last November, Valerie Williams went to the polling station in the lobby of her Indianapolis retirement home to vote. In doing so, she unwittingly walked into the middle of a national debate about voting rights and laws designed to prevent voter fraud. The election officials at the polling place, who Williams had known for years, told her she could not cast a regular ballot. They said the forms of identification she had always used--a phone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it, and an expired Indiana driver's license--were no longer valid under Indiana's new voter I.D. law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.

"Of course I threw a fit," says Williams, 61. She cast a provisional ballot, which was not counted because she didn't go to the voting office within 10 days to prove her identity, as required under the law. Williams, who has trouble walking, says she couldn't get a ride to the office.

This incident is at the heart of a challenge to the Indiana law currently being considered by the Supreme Court. The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, is "the most important case involving the mechanics of election administration in decades," says Daniel R Tokaji, a law professor at Ohio State University.

The Court will probably decide the case by June, in time to affect the November presidential election.

By Ian Urbina in Washington, D.C.

Supporters of the law, most of them Republicans, say requiring a state photo I.D. card is a prudent step toward curbing voter fraud. They say the requirement helps restore confidence in the voting process by removing the potential for fraud.

Opponents of the law, mostly Democrats, view voter I.D. requirements as a deterrent that disproportionately affects poor, minority, and elderly voters, who more often lack the required forms of I.D.--and who also tend to be Democrats.


Three states--Florida, Georgia, and Indiana--require voters to show a photo I.D.. Other states allow other types of documentation, such as utility bills or an affidavit from the voter. Twenty-three states require only what federal law demands: that just first-time voters who apply by mail and have not otherwise been verified by the state must prove their identity with documentation.

Last year, 27 states considered laws like the one in Indiana, seeking to increase I.D. requirements for registration or voting, according to the New York University School of Law. The Supreme Court ruling will affect all such legislation.

In the 1980s and '90s, the Supreme Court came up with a test for assessing any law that placed hurdles before voters: Courts must weigh the value of the law to the state against the burden it places on voters.

Supporters of the Indiana law say the I.D. requirement is hardly burdensome in today's world. "It is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today's America without a photo I.D.," Judge Richard A. Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago wrote in a January 2007 opinion upholding the Indiana law. "Try flying, or even entering a tall building, such as the courthouse in which we sit, without one. And as a consequence, the vast majority of adults have such identification."

But according to various sources, it is estimated that between 13 million and 22 million Americans of voting age--most of them poor lack driver's licenses, passports, or another kind of government-issued photo I.D. A 2007 study at the University of Washington found that about 13 percent of registered voters in Indiana lacked the required identification.


"It's important to look at voter I.D. requirements in the context of previous attempts to disenfranchise voters," says Spencer Overton, a law professor at George Washington University.

Overton says literacy tests and poll taxes, which were used broadly across the South and prevented many blacks from voting until the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s, seemed in some ways legitimate: An electorate that can read sounds reasonable, and poll taxes help pay for elections. But the Supreme Court declared both unconstitutional because they create barriers to voting for certain groups.

"It's a step backward for voting rights if the Court upholds the voter I.D. requirement because it's likely that millions of legitimate voters will not cast a ballot in future elections," Overton says. "The United States is in the bottom 19 percent of all democracies in the world in terms of voter turnout; the photo I.D. requirement would likely make things worse."

The Court's decision in this case could set the standard for all kinds of challenges to election rules across the country, including ones involving the handling of provisional ballots, new restrictions on voter registration, and the methods states can use to purge voters from registration rolls. In close national elections, like the 2000 or 2004 presidential races, these kinds of rules can make a difference in outcomes.

No one has ever been prosecuted for impersonating a voter, the type of fraud that would be prevented by a photo I.D. "No one has been punished for this kind of fraud in living memory in this country," Paul M. Smith, a lawyer for the Democrats, told the Justices when the case was argued last month.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts seemed unimpressed. "It's a type of fraud that, because it's fraud, it's hard to detect," he replied.

By Ian Urbina in Washington

Ian Urbina is a reporter for The New York Times, based in Washington, D.C. Additional reporting by Linda Greenhouse and Adam Liptak of The Times, and by Patricia Smith.


Ask students to consider the key arguments in the voter I.D. debate.

* Do they agree with Chief Justice John G. Roberts that voter fraud is hard to detect and might be going on under the radar?

* Do they think that historical practices like poll taxes and literacy tests put the burden on officials to prove that fraud is a serious problem before enacting laws like Indiana's?

How much of a role do they think politics plays in the positions of Repubicans and Democrats on this question? Is this all about winning elections?


Have students use the information in the article to write five-paragraph essays in which they argue for or against laws like Indiana's.


What do you think of the argument that requiring a photo ID to vote is no different from requiring one to get on planes or into certain buildings?

What might authorities do if voter fraud is discovered after a winning candidate has already taken office? What might explain why the U.S. ranks so poorly in voter turnout compared with other democracies?


Under federal law, voter fraud is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. About 30 percent of all U.S. votes are cast on unverifiable touch-screen voting machines, which leave no paper trail

WEB WATCH elect/taskfc/voteridreq.htm A National Conference of State legislatures table shows each state's voter ID requirement.


(1) Indiana voters without proper photo I.D.'s were required to

a report to a voting office within 10 days to prove their identities.

b write letters of explanation to their state board of elections

c surrender their voting rights until their cases were investigated.

d return to their polling stations with copies of their birth certificates.

(2) Opponent of voter I.D, laws say they

a violate a long tradition of less stringent voter ID requirements.

b are an invasion of personal privacy.

c disproportionately affect poor, minority, and elderly voters.

d complicate what is now a relatively smooth election process.

(3) In the 1960s, the Supreme Court outlawed practices in the South that created a barrier to voting for certain populations. These practices included

a changing election dates without appropriate notice.

b prohibiting some people from giving money to candidates.

c raising the voting age for certain elections.

d literacy tests and poll taxes.

(4) Supporters of the Indiana voter I.D. law say

a it is needed because voter fraud is a big problem in the U.S.

b it is one more tool to help distinguish between honest citizens and those who might present threats to security.

c carrying photo I.D.'s is hardly burdensome in today's America.

d it is needed because it is next to impossible to verify voter identity without a photo.


(1) What would be the pros and cons of fingerprint I.D.'s or eye-scanning devices to identify eligible voters?

(2) What might account for the fact that between 13 million and 22 million Americans do not have government I.D.'s?


(1) [a] report to a voting office within 10 days to prove their identities.

* [c] disproportionately affect poor, minority, and elderly voters.

* [d] literacy tests and poll taxes

* [c] carrying photo I.D.s is hardly burdensome in today's America.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Scholastic, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:National
Author:Urbina, Ian
Publication:New York Times Upfront
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Feb 25, 2008
Previous Article:Why the world is watching: the race for the White House always generates interest overseas, but this year's campaign has people all over the globe...
Next Article:Dollar doldrums: for much of the world, America is on sale--and foreigners are snapping up bargains. But what does the "weak dollar" really mean, and...

Related Articles
New barriers to voting: eroding the right to vote.
The people speak.
Election fraud and the initiative process: a study of the 2006 Michigan civil rights initiative.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters