Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

The kind of voter fraud engaged in by Richard I and his cronies would not even be nudged by the measures taken in the Indiana statute. This is a perfect example of the purported remedial measure not being narrowly tailored to the actual circumstances. Of course, the point of Justice Stevens’s opinion is that narrowly-tailored-compelling-need is not the test for this kind of government intervention, either.

In short, two wrongs don’t make a right. Worry about problems with ballot counting (such as hacking electronic ballot systems or “revising” hand counts), ballot security, and so on first — they’re far more common (surely you remember the problems in Champaign County in 1992?). Don’t put a bandaid on a relatively rare problem while ignoring the sucking chest wound. I’m irritated with the Indiana system because of the pretense that it’s solving something and the reality that it’s ignoring the problem far more than I am with any partisanship.

"Maybe the opinion’s thin, but election fraud has long been rampant. “

Actually I thought the decision acknowledged that the record didn’t identify any instances of voter fraud in the history of the state of Indiana.  It just seems to be an article of faith in some quarters that voter fraud is “rampant” so obviously no one needs any actual evidence to support that.

And the other poster is correct - Daley style vote fraud is just making up the results - something you’re free to do regardless of any ID requirements.  Similarly rigging electronic voting machines is a far better option and also completely unaffected by voter ID requirements.  Why would you go to all the trouble trying to round up people to vote illegally when you can win the whole election just by rigging the machines that count the ballots?

I have to admit, that while I am philosophically predisposed to the notion that one ought to have to a picture ID to vote, I am to the point where it does seem that this is a solution in search of a problem, as there doesn’t appear to be any widespread voter fraud of the type that requiring an ID would fix.

As such, I have to say that I am becoming sympathetic to the argument that the net result is to make it more difficult for some voters to vote.  And I can see why Democrats might view these rules as targeting their voters.

Perhaps I’m biased because voter fraud is such a problem here in Milwaukee:

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933

In 2004 Milwaukee county had 5 thousand more votes than registered voters.  I find it hard to believe that the problem is unique to this city. 

This doesn’t mean that a voter ID requirement is the best solution, but denying the problem’s existence doesn’t seem realistic to me.

How are the illegal aliens going to vote for Democrats if they have to produce real ID cards, and not the phony photocopier crap that employers will accept?

How are the illegals going to express their constitutional right to vote illegally.

Oh man, this is oppressive.

It is important to remember that in order to catch fraud, you have to be able to look for it. Since the system is currently designed to make it nearly impossible to look for fraud without extensive (well-after-the-election-is-over) audits, like that done in Chicago in 1982, it is pretty hard to catch fraud. If nothing else, the voter ID requirement will make it easier to identify when fraud is occurring, which might lead to other needed reforms.

I can’t board an airplane without photo ID. Or rent a video at Blockbuster, or even get a library card, for that matter.

Why should the bar be lower for voting?

Three words:  Greene County, Alabama.

Look it up.

I sdee that the lefty trolls are mourning now in the comments.

Guys, I know that you don’t believe in deterrence, as is evidenced by the same set of crocodile tears being shed over the difference in racial makeup of prison populations and all that stuff.

But it does seem to be instinctively obvious to the casual observer, and even to the otherwise port-canted Justice Stevens, that asking a valid voter for a FREE ID card, for which the state will pay your costs and carefare to obtain, is not overly burdensome.  And requiring it is a bit of a speed bump for those who rely on lax election ID laws to vote a few times.

In any SMSA populated by college students, it is common for them to vote twice- once at school, once back in the home state (my university is full of such talk every 2 years).  And I am a long ways away from the Daley machine, unlike the ACORN crooks in Gary, In diana.

Over at LGF, the blogger jammiewearingfool linked to his blog post about this subject, and his link (not the post, unfortunately) has the title “Horror! Indiana Voters Must Show Photo ID: Minorities, Dead People Hardest Hit”

:D

Three more words: St. Louis, MO.

Four more words: East St. Louis, IL.

Anyone who thinks voter fraud isn’t rampant is seriously or willfully uninformed.

Compare this to the SCOTUS decision upholding McCain Feingold.  In that case, they ruled that the appearance of political integrity trumped a citizen’s right to join with other citizens in running campaign ads free of government regulation.  IMHO the restriction of civil liberties mandated by McCain Feingold is far greater that the requriement to obtain a free picture ID card.  And, the benefit of the ID seems clearer.

I would like to propose that the right to vote be treated the same as the right to bear arms.  Why should two items in the bill of rights be treated differently?  I have to pay $10 for a federal and state background check to purchase a handgun or rifle, every time I do so.  Why not impose the same burden on the the right to register to vote?  You register, you pay your background check fee, and if you pass, you are given a voter registration card.  Any time you wish to vote, present your voter registration card along with a photo ID.

Of course this argument is meant to prove a point about the socially acceptable regulation of some rights (2A) and the the absolute hysteria over proposed commonsense regulation of other rights (voting), and no politicial would dare suggest it.  But I’m just saying, it would go along way to curb voter fraud.

Now if they could just prosecute voter fraud as tenaciously as they prosecute non-violent gun crimes (read, crimes of illegal possession, not of use), then I’d know that constitutional rights are given equal weight by the government.

I just love the Lefty argument that, basically, any program/policy that isn’t perfect should not be allowed to be implemented.  Since using ID will not stop all possible forms of vote fraud, it should not go forward.

Swell.  I’ve got a rather large collection of Lefty policies/programs that should therefore be stopped.

Anyway, having grown up in Illinois I’ve *seen* plenty of vote fraud of one kind and another since I first started paying attention in the early 60s.  I’ve seen van loads of people being driven from one poll to the next, voting at each one.  I’ve seen rigged machines and stuffed ballot boxes.  All I can say is that whichever party is in power generally finds a way to ‘inflate’ their totals.

As for “Actually I thought the decision acknowledged that the record didn’t identify any instances of voter fraud in the history of the state of Indiana”—well, since the discussion was about people voting under someone else’s name, perhaps since there was NO WAY IN THE WORLD TO PROVE it was occurring, they have never ‘caught’ any such vote fraud.

When you make such bogus arguments, you’re certainly exposing the general weakness of your position.

It seems to me that if you protest a simple measure to prevent fraud, you are arguing in favor of fraud, regardless of the evidence of whether the fraud is widespread or not. I’m not in favor of fraud. This is not a difficult or subtle point.

Wasn’t one of the people brought out by the plaintiffs to “prove” this would be an undue burden voting fraudulently? Granted, it was because she was claiming residence in two states, but isn’t it hard to argue there’s no voter fraud when the plaintiffs admit to committing it?

After the 2000 election various coeds at University of Wisconsin were heard to brag that they had shuttled from polling station to polling station, voting several times for Al Gore in the process.  When state investigators interviewed them they denied everything and, w/o proof, the matter was dropped.  As we don’t link ballots to casters and no one dips a finger in blue ink after voting in this country it’s impossible to catch fraudulent voters after the fact.  We know there have been stolen votes because periodically the *legitimate* voter shows up and finds out someone has voted in his name.  And if Gladys Mays dies before the election and her granddaughter votes in her place no one can catch her w/o photo ID. 

One of the plaintiffs in the suit that went before the USSC joined because poll workers wouldn’t let her vote in Indiana using her Florida state drivers license.  She was also registered to vote both in Florida and Indiana.  She claimed she didn’t know she was supposed to pick one or the other state as her primary residence and vote there.

We in Washington State witnessed steeling of the gubernatorial election by less than 200 votes. It tool three recounts to do the job. “Found” ballots were discovered again and again. Dead, illegal, multiple, non-existent, and otherwise unauthorized ballots were counted,sometimes more than once. Picture ID is one little step towards honest elections.This requirement should not be tossed in the dumpster because there are several ways to cast fraudulent votes.

So Bainbridge has brought up support for a law based on an activity for which the law would not be prevented by the voter ID act.  This has been done over and over again and Stevens even admits that there is no support for any assertion that voter fraud of the type that a voter ID act would prevent is even widespread.  Why support the law when it would have disproportionate impact on minorities and poor? 

The ID isn’t “free” since to get the “free” ID one needs to purchase a birth certificate to get the “free” ID. 

The voter ID act is much worse than less than perfect, its simply a non-issue when it comes to the applicable voter fraud voter IDs would prevent. 

Now if you really wanted to have an impact on voter fraud, you would do something about mail-in voting, since that is an avenue of wide voter fraud, but then that would disenfranchise Republican voters and Republican legislatures wouldn’t want that travesty to happen. 

So Stephen should point to some actual instances of voter fraud that a voter ID act would actually prevent.  Just defining voter fraud in broad terms and then pretending voter ID has anything to do with it is sloppy and discredits Stephen’s ability to analyze a problem.  I hope this isn’t the standard he uses for his legal scholarship.  UCLA should be concerned if it was.

Steve,

You’re an idiot.  The vast majority of mail-in voters for the last two election cycles have been Democratic voters.

Oh yeah, wasn’t it the Democratic party that has been complaining for those said same two election cycles that voter fraud MUST have been what cost them the elections?  Because everyone knows that any right-thinking American HAS to agree with their cause de jour?

In summary: Scream voter fraud.  Object to any preventive measures.  If all else fails call people racist.

Manual Trackback™

I’m sorry, are some of you arguing minorities aren’t capable of running the maze required to obtain a photo ID?  Or that poor people are SO POOR they can’t obtain a certified copy of a birth certificate?

Really ...

Though it’s a common tactic - - - “Oh, I understand your goal, I even support means to attain it (as long as they aren’t actually before the court / legislature for consideration right now), I’m just compelled to oppose the means you’re proposing.”

What Florida 2000 demonstrated is the carnage which results when basic standards aren’t established & enforced.  Punch the card all the way through; blacken in the box of your preferred candidate; pull the lever all the way down.  No more divining rods, ouija boards, no more seminars on the care, treatment and classification of hanging chads (unless you’re ready to take the next logical step - reading the entrails of goats).

BD, again, that poor people should be able to get an ID isn’t the issue.  The issue is that a law which creates a greater burden on poor and minorities is being justified by a phenomenon for which the law does not address. 

To their credit, Scalia, Alito and Thomas could care less if certain groups are burdened moreso than others.  Stevens, however, paints voter fraud with a broad stroke and thinks the extra burden is worth it when the law wouldn’t, by his own admission, work to deal with the type of voter fraud that voter IDs would prevent. 

As for Matt above, mail-in voters tend to be rural/suburban, wealthier, more educated, don’t fall under section 5 voting rights act jurisdictions and were more likely to mail-in vote in pro-Bush districts.

Matt:

I keep think of those really poor who are getting food stamps, and welfare checks and so forth.  You mean to tell me that there is no way they can get an ID somehow through these programs?  Voter Fraud is real and so should be IDs.  If the poor getting them is a problem then address that and not raise the fake issue of access.  As we all know dead people vote Democrat and they vote multiple times, see Daly in Chicago in the 1960’s so of course the Democrats are upset.

Rich, again, the voter ID laws, even by admission of the proponents of the voter ID act, would not prevent the types of voter fraud that occurred in Chicago. 

Why is that so hard a concept to understand?  The voter ID act does not address the type of voter fraud that proponents say it will.  Proponents take a broad brush definition on voter fraud and use that to justify a law that creates a greater burden on poor and minorities. 

food stamps, welfare checks and what not is another non-sensical red herring.  It takes months to establish welfare benefits and it may take several attempts to do so.  Voting is nothing similar to establishing welfare.  In addition to that, its offensive, yet typical of many mindless proponents, to stereotype poor and minorities as welfare lackeys outside of normal civil society to justify them being disproportionately burdened.  Sad.

Sorry matt, the crux of the design was that the ‘burden’ you’re so worried about it justified in light of the problem being addressed.  And before you claim there is no problem, you might want to chat with the ACORN workers (in various states) that have been accused, indicted and in Seattle pleaded guilty to fraud.

I am not sure why you refer to section 5, it doesn’t apply to Indiana.  Moreover, none of the listed states are the subject of these restrictions… unless you are trying to equate requiring an ID to vote with Jim Crow laws.  Because if that is the case, then requiring a drivers is an undue burden on mobility and restrictions to the 2nd Amendment are completely unwarranted.

As for mail-in voters, you might want to check the demographics of the last two elections… mail-ins swung heavilty to Democratic districts in “Blue” states.

And by the way, in a practical sense, why don’t you want minorities to have IDs?  If having one makes life easier for them, are you afraid they won’t be a voting block you can count on?

Matt, one would expect mail-in voters in blue states to swing democrat.. thats why they are called blue states.  As I mentioned above, mail-in voters tend to be suburban/rural, have more money, more educated etc.  I mention section 5 because the Indiana law is the justification for voter ID laws in Georgia, Arizona and other places.  I am certain Georgia districts are under section 5, though maybe not Arizona. 

From a practical sense, since I’m republican, I could care less what voting bloc minorities are or are not.  The point I’m making is that people are justifying a law with red herrings. If the justification is logical and has a connection to the issue, fine, if not, at least admit what the law is intended to do. 

with regard to ACORN, again, what does voter IDs have to do with registration fraud, since photo-ID isn’t needed to register?  More red herrings.

Steve,

Your point about section 5 is nebulous, especially in light of the fact that this issue has been reviewed by the USSC so I am sure it would pass muster in the reviewing district court.  Besides, don’t worry about poor backward Georgia, worry about the 27 other states who realize this is a common sense law.

As for your political leanings, they are irrelevant.  You’re using the exact argument and logic utilized by the DNC which is terrified of losing the voting block.  This argument is not based on fair and honest elections, it is simply based on a desire to win elections.  Besides, all of these laws include provisions to help people get the very IDs that they need.

As for your red herrings, if you fraudlently register someone (as ACORN did) there was no way to verify that at the time of the election (because only the signatures have to match and there is no practical way to verify this.) If you tie an ID to the registration process, in this case at the time of the election and generation of the voting roles, it is a simple matter to verify the two lists and identify duplicates.  Not a red herring, just practical security.

The assumption that this law will be used against minorities et al. is getting old.  Why is it that someone can’t want a basic level of security to protect a national elections, while still wanting everyone to be able to participate.  The court ruled this isn’t a burden, get ready for a lot of ACLU lawsuit getting tossed.

Matt, I’m pointing out that SCOTUS’s reasoning is faulty and the justification for the law is not addressed by the law. And so you are right.  This is motivated by winning elections.  If the Republican legislatures cared about fraud voting, they’d address registration fraud (as you suggest, but is not addressed), mail-in voter fraud(is explicitly excluded from the law), and inadequate voting systems, but then that wouldn’t give Republicans an electoral advantage. 

There is no assumption here.  Its long been established that barriers to voting, however mundane one may think they are, has a disproportionate impact on poor and minorities.  That we’re willing to allow these barriers to certain demographics is fine with me so long as they’re justified and acknowledged.  To come up with blanket justification that doesn’t apply is disingenuous and obscures the true problems we have with voting discrepancies. 

The

"As for “Actually I thought the decision acknowledged that the record didn’t identify any instances of voter fraud in the history of the state of Indiana”—well, since the discussion was about people voting under someone else’s name, perhaps since there was NO WAY IN THE WORLD TO PROVE it was occurring, they have never ‘caught’ any such vote fraud.”

So it’s simultaneously both rampant and completely unproveable?  If so, how will you ever be able to tell if and when it isn’t rampant?

"We in Washington State witnessed steeling of the gubernatorial election by less than 200 votes. It tool three recounts to do the job. “Found” ballots were discovered again and again. Dead, illegal, multiple, non-existent, and otherwise unauthorized ballots were counted,sometimes more than once.”

That’s fraud in the counting of ballots, if that’s what occurred, not fraud through impersonating voters.  If you can corrupt the ballot counters (or rig the electronic voting machines) you don’t need to impersonate voters, you just make up the results.

Hence, I’ll start to take voter ID requirements as a fraud prevention measure seriously when the proponents of such measures are equally vigorous in opposing the use of black box voting machines whose accuracy cannot be verified.

Hmm… I understand the argument that ID requirements impose a disproportionate burden on the poor.  Everything imposes a disproportionate burden on the poor, from heating the house to paying for milk.  That’s the definition of “poor.”

What I don’t understand is the claim that ID requirements impose an extra burden on “minorities.” Which minorities precisely are we talking about, and why would a “minority” voter have a harder time getting an ID than a non-"minority" voter of similar means?  Or is this because minorities tend to be poor?  Because in that case, someone is double-dipping.

Cornellian:

On that Washington State election in 2004, more people were found to have illegally voted after the fact than the margin of victory in the election.

Steve, my problem with your arguments and what I discussed in my last response, is that requiring an ID to vote DOES address fraud at registration (by making the registration system trackable and verfiable) and at the time of voting by making it difficult for the dead to vote (still, unfortunately a problem here in Chicago (Yes, it happened in recent elections, we’re so proud)).

I guess we disagree about the justifications, and likely what it would take to prove these justifications, but I do appreciate that we can disagree without the acrimony that normally accompanies political discussion today.

As E. Nough noted, just about everything effects that poor (but not necessarily minorities) to a great degree which is specifically why the Indiana law includes provisions for casting provisional ballots, helping people get State IDs, etc.  I think in this instance your disagreement with these provisions is a bit of a red herring itself.  The state is attempting to help people vote, and get IDs to vote.  If we set the bar as low as your arguments seem to imply, we’d start handing out IDs like library cards simply because a person is “poor"… thereby rendering the entire system useless.

Besides, if your first and second amendment rights can be regulated, there is no reason why common sense regulations cannot be imposed when a person votes.  You don’t question the current unverified registration process, isn’t having to sign-up a burden on the poor? (They have to travel and make their mark.)

"Why support the law when it would have disproportionate impact on minorities and poor? “

If we are going to start striking down laws simply because they have disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor, then the laws against theft, rape, and murder will have to go.

Of course, I realize that to many of our lefty friends this is in fact the desired goal, and they are saying “Yeah? So?”

"I’ll start to take voter ID requirements as a fraud prevention measure seriously when the proponents of such measures are equally vigorous in opposing the use of black box voting machines whose accuracy cannot be verified.”

The accuracy of the entire voting system cannot be verified, regardless of whether any “black box” system is used. The whole thing at present runs on the honor system. It’s assumed that voters and the people who work at the polling booths will all behave themselves. And it’s assumed that non-voters will not vote.

If there is some entrenched body of opinion out there which favors the use of ‘black box voting machines whose accuracy cannot be verified’, I’ve not heard of it. But there most certainly ARE several large and well financed groups which work franticaly to stop ID laws. The Democratic Party, for instance. You don’t have to be a cynic to wonder why that is.

If we are going to start striking down laws simply because they have disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor, then the laws against theft, rape, and murder will have to go.

There is no reason to strike down laws that serve their intended purpose on the basis that they will disproportionately impact minorities or poor people.  The question here was whether or not the court should have used a stricter measure to justify the disproportionate impact because it addresses the important act of voting. 

If poor and minorities are going to be impacted disproportionately, then thats fine so long as the law provides a benefit that outweighs that impact. 

The stated reason for these laws is to prevent voter fraud at the voting booth.  This act is admitted even by the lawmakers to be extremely rare. 

As was said above, this isn’t about voter fraud, its about gaining an electoral advantage, its and being done under the excuse that it would prevent fraud.

If the GOP were concerned with voter fraud they’d address registration fraud, voting systems/counting, mail-in voting fraud, etc.  But thats not their primary concern.

Or, the GOP’s concern could be that people who are not entitled to vote are voting: illegal immigrants, for example, who prefer Democrats.  Or that some people are voting more than once, like the aforementioned college students (who also trend Democrat). Not to mention groups like ACORN and other “community activists” specifically signing up and bringing to the polls ineligible voters.  If you’re going to ascribe nefarious motives, you could just as easily accuse Democrats of working hard to prevent voter ID laws because they would lose their current electoral advantage.  It’s a fool’s game.

I’d still like an explanation as to how minorities are “impacted disproportionally” by ID laws.

Steve:

You seem stuck in the legal weeds.  The issue is voter fraud.  As demonstrated in numerous posts above, it manifestly is a problem.  Requiring an ID will not solve all instances of voter fraud, but it will solve some, no?

“JorgXMcKie” made this point above on 04/30 at 08:47 PM.  You would be more persuasive in your argument if you addressed this topic.

The question is whether you support ameliorating voter in any fashion.

Steve seems to believe that the voters who get driven to the polls by ACORN will not be able to get ACORN to also help them with the ID cards.  Hey, just put out the word, George Soros will fund the “birth certificate fee slush account” out of his pocket change.

Mail-in voting includes absentee ballots, of course, for which it is quite possible to address fraud issues, and I strongly encourage all legislatures, Republican or Democrat, to pass bills to deal with that.

Don’t worry, Steve- your friends will find a way to play the system, they always have before.  Like disenfranchising the Florida military, as they tried so hard to do in 2000.