Justice Department letter to Texas objecting to voter ID law

[Kevin]

I don't understand what the big deal is here. In Oklahoma, your voter registration card works in lieu of a photo ID. If you don't have one of those, you never registered to vote or you lost it. Either way, your bad.

As far as Texas goes, $16 to get a state ID card, even if you don't drive or $5 if you're >60 is no big deal. You should have an ID anyhow for a variety of reasons.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I don't understand what the big deal is here. In Oklahoma, your voter registration card works in lieu of a photo ID. If you don't have one of those, you never registered to vote or you lost it. Either way, your bad.

As far as Texas goes, $16 to get a state ID card, even if you don't drive or $5 if you're >60 is no big deal. You should have an ID anyhow for a variety of reasons.

It's still effectively a poll tax - it's not so much that the amount itself is overly burdensome, but it does create awkward precedent.

Unrelated to your point, but more for the folks upstream ... comparing voting to driving or buying liquor is somewhere between silly and insane.

[AnotherKD]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's still effectively a poll tax - it's not so much that the amount itself is overly burdensome, but it does create awkward precedent.

Unrelated to your point, but more for the folks upstream ... comparing voting to driving or buying liquor is somewhere between silly and insane.

Okay, then what about comparing it to the rule now where people must show ID to take the SAT or ACT (which, incidentally, I thought was already a requirement). It is to cut down on fraud and to make the results more reliable. Which should be the reasons for requiring ID to vote.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AnotherKD

Okay, then what about comparing it to the rule now where people must show ID to take the SAT or ACT (which, incidentally, I thought was already a requirement).

But the government doesn't administer the SAT or the ACT, so it's not the government requiring something in order to exercise a fundamental right.

I still say that those who advocate for photo IDs bear the burden of (1) showing that voter fraud is currently a real problem, and (2) that photo IDs will fight that problem.

[SWTXBelle]

I would argue that the salient point is if it is a reasonable (Constitutional?) requirement to insure the validity of the vote - whether or not known fraud is a perceived problem. The problem with fraud is that if it is successful you will never know.

If the issue is cost/convenience of getting id then let's address THAT - it should not be cost prohibitive for the poor to be able to procure an id, which would have the added benefit of enabling them to more fully participate in society.

If the issue is the problems facing the elderly in need of id, perhaps they can be grandfathered in.

FYI - TX Id for those under 60 is $16 for 6 years; over 60 is $6 with an indefinite (in other words, no) expiration date. Fee waived for disabled veterans.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's still effectively a poll tax - it's not so much that the amount itself is overly burdensome, but it does create awkward precedent.

Unrelated to your point, but more for the folks upstream ... comparing voting to driving or buying liquor is somewhere between silly and insane.

That's a tenuous argument. I'm not sure there's law going strongly either way. The fee isn't to vote, it's a negligible fee in Texas (not more than $25.00) to get a state-issued ID.

Even if they can't get that, they can still present any of the following:

a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;

a form of identification containing the person's photograph that establishes the person's identity;

a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person's identity;
United States citizenship papers issued to the person;

a United States passport issued to the person;
official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;

a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or

any other form of identification prescribed by the Secretary of State.

So no, there is not necessarily going to be a fee associated with voting. I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned before in this thread, but Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008) dealt with this issue and is on-point since voting in Texas is possible by just presenting a utility bill or a government issued check or various other forms of free ID.

Justice Stevens wrote:

The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.

So no, it's not a "poll tax" and it's perfectly permissible. The outrage at this issue is just phony. I can't see any rational reason to be upset about this unless you believe your party will be materially disadvantaged by not being able to commit as much voter fraud.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

That's a tenuous argument. I'm not sure there's law going strongly either way. The fee isn't to vote, it's a negligible fee in Texas (not more than $25.00) to get a state-issued ID.

I don't think it's tenuous to at least nod toward the connection, say:

Fee for ID -> ID needed to vote = Fee needed to vote.

There are obviously other considerations, such as:

Even if they can't get that, they can still present any of the following:

a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety or a similar document issued to the person by an agency of another state, regardless of whether the license or card has expired;

a form of identification containing the person's photograph that establishes the person's identity;

a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person's identity;
United States citizenship papers issued to the person;

a United States passport issued to the person;
official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental entity;

a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or

any other form of identification prescribed by the Secretary of State.

These neatly sidestep the connection with fees, assuming the documents still exist and are in the person's possession, so there's that. Should "hang onto your shit" be a requirement for voting? I guess I'm not in a position to really say, since it doesn't affect me at all, but I don't really understand this push toward making voting more exclusive, particularly since evidence of voter fraud is mostly anecdotal.

Every time I've voted (granted, only across two states), pretty strict steps have been taken to ensure only one vote per registered voter. So that means any potential fraud happens either in the registration process (this requirement does nothing to stop that), or in somebody claiming to be somebody they are not. It is 100% questionable whether these types of laws do ANYTHING to stop the latter - so why impose further burdens on (legitimate) voters?

Anything that sidesteps the need for fees almost invariably allows potential fraud just as easily as the current system.

So no, it's not a "poll tax" and it's perfectly permissible. The outrage at this issue is just phony. I can't see any rational reason to be upset about this unless you believe your party will be materially disadvantaged by not being able to commit as much voter fraud.

Since Indiana's IDs were free (per the decision), I don't think this is comparable or really even relevant, given the tighter focus above.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Anything that sidesteps the need for fees almost invariably allows potential fraud just as easily as the current system.

Pardon the super-douchey "quoting myself" bit ...

To explain a little further: if our claim is that there is no connection between ID fees and voting because you can provide non-ID documentation (that is free), then you've also just:

-Allowed somebody to steal a utility bill and use that to vote in the place of another.
-Created a cottage industry for anything reasonably resembling a birth certificate (I have two copies of mine, and one is so worn that there is no longer any sort of embossing/notarization).
-Check stubs? Anybody with a laptop and perforated paper can go to town.

So what on Earth does this sort of law actually DO? What is the purpose, other than weeding out lazy voters?

Are people really ready to argue that those who commit voter fraud are somehow even more lazy, and thus will be turned away in even bigger numbers? That seems insane on its face...

[PiKA2001]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Are people really ready to argue that those who commit voter fraud are somehow even more lazy, and thus will be turned away in even bigger numbers? That seems insane on its face...

I am. It's one thing to get a voter registration card with the name of Donald Duck on it and be able to cast your ballot no questions asked, but if "Don Duck" has to somehow obtain a photo ID to match his registration card it may provide quite a deterrence to voter fraud. It's common sense man, if you make fraudulent voting harder to do less people will do it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

I am. It's one thing to get a voter registration card with the name of Donald Duck on it and be able to cast your ballot no questions asked, but if "Don Duck" has to somehow obtain a photo ID to match his registration card it may provide quite a deterrence to voter fraud. It's common sense man, if you make fraudulent voting harder to do less people will do it.

You also make LEGIT voting harder, and thus less people will do it - and if the effect on legitimate voting is greater than the effect on fraudulent voting, you could very easily see a net increase in the effect of the fraudulent votes.

Especially if you have to do things like allow paper documents, as is apparently the case in the Texas law above.

"Common sense" is still subject to math.

ETA: Also this "may provide" stuff is exactly the problem (and why I agree w/ MC below).

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Pardon the super-douchey "quoting myself" bit ...

To explain a little further: if our claim is that there is no connection between ID fees and voting because you can provide non-ID documentation (that is free), then you've also just:

-Allowed somebody to steal a utility bill and use that to vote in the place of another.
-Created a cottage industry for anything reasonably resembling a birth certificate (I have two copies of mine, and one is so worn that there is no longer any sort of embossing/notarization).
-Check stubs? Anybody with a laptop and perforated paper can go to town.

So what on Earth does this sort of law actually DO? What is the purpose, other than weeding out lazy voters?

Are people really ready to argue that those who commit voter fraud are somehow even more lazy, and thus will be turned away in even bigger numbers? That seems insane on its face...

But if you have, for example, registered a bunch of fake names or the Dallas Cowboys offensive line as voters and intend to vote in their place, obtaining these documents is going to not be impossible, but it's going to be a lot more trouble than it's worth. Your objections more prove my point that not only could you probably falsify the documents you want to use (for free), the ID requirements do not make free identification very hard to get at all.

Having all of these other documents work to satisfy the requirement of ID does sidestep the cost argument. Those documents either have been issued to you at one point for free or are being issued to you every month.

If you can't get something on that list, you have bigger problems than voting. Ensuring the validity of the vote exceeds the nominal trouble some nominal minority of voters will have to go through in order to vote.

I doubt the Justice Dept. is successful here.

As for Mysticat's argument that those advocating for this have the burden, isn't it true that we presume things flowing from the legislative process to be constitutional? Isn't it then the other way around--that either the opponents have to show that this requirement conflicts with the 24th Amendment or is in somehow in violation of equal protection?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But if you have, for example, registered a bunch of fake names or the Dallas Cowboys offensive line as voters and intend to vote in their place, obtaining these documents is going to not be impossible, but it's going to be a lot more trouble than it's worth.

Having all of these other documents work to satisfy the requirement of ID does sidestep the cost argument. Those documents either have been issued to you at one point for free or are being issued to you every month.

If you can't get something on that list, you have bigger problems than voting. Ensuring the validity of the vote exceeds the nominal trouble some nominal minority of voters will have to go through in order to vote.

This is exactly my issue though - "more trouble than it's worth"? We don't even have any idea of whether voter fraud of the type you've noted is widespread - how can we have any idea of how much "trouble" those willing to defraud the vote will go through?

Beyond that, I love how the number potentially disenfranchised is "nominal" but we have a tight handle on how much trouble people will or won't go through to commit fraud.

Either way though, you're vastly overstating the difficulty of coming up with a reasonable-looking utility bill or pay stub. I just checked, and Word2010 has templates that would allow me to print my own, right now. There's no "deterrent" effect if you allow those other forms of (free) identification, and clearly those are included to attempt to remain Constitutional. Nobody at a polling place will be able to say "wait, that's not a valid paystub!" or "that water bill looks Photoshopped!"

Even if you stick to state IDs, you can show out of state ID, or college ID! You could fake those from the public library. Literally, you.

So again, quite simply: what exactly is this law doing? Those who wish to vote fraudulently still can, easily (and that's assuming there is even widespread fraud to begin with). Some people, though, just don't get to vote.

Saying "well, too bad for them, they should have ____" is pretty poor - it's kind of a fundamental right.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As for Mysticat's argument that those advocating for this have the burden, isn't it true that we presume things flowing from the legislative process to be constitutional? Isn't it then the other way around--that either the opponents have to show that this requirement conflicts with the 24th Amendment or is in somehow in violation of equal protection?

As a general rule, yes. Statutes are generally presumed to be constitutional. But any legislature considering a law like this should surely think ahead to the lawsuit that will come.

If a law burdens a "fundamental" or "core" right -- and the right to vote typically is found to fit that bill, so it seems at least reasonable to predict that a court might find that it does so here -- then the presumption of constitutionality is lost, and the statute will only be upheld if the government can show that it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. That's where the rubber would hit the road on needing to show that there actually is a problem and that voter ID will address that problem and goes no further than necessary to address that problem.