By Caitlin Barbas
A recent Supreme Court decision to block the implementation of Wisconsin’s new Voter ID law has reignited debates over the constitutionality of Voter identification laws. Often seen as discriminatory and burdensome, these laws are aimed at preventing fraudulent voting activity. In order to analyze the current stance of voter ID laws as well as the legality of these laws, this paper will first examine the US Supreme Court’s decision on Wisconsin, the Federal Court overturn of the Texas Voter ID law, and the arguments in favor and against these laws. This examination will conclude with an analysis of possible the future outlooks and possible solutions for voter identification methods.
The Supreme Court’s released no explanation of their decision regarding the Wisconsin Voter ID Law, raising questions as to whether the court found the law unconstitutional or if the timing of the implementation led to the block. In the explanation of his dissenting position, Justice Alito explained the Court’s concern over absentee ballots, which had been distributed prior to the decision to implement the Identification laws, and, therefore, did not include identification requirements on the instructions for voting.[1] Furthermore, critics of the law voiced concern that the short time-span between implementation of the law and the November elections would prevent large numbers of voters from obtaining identification before voting commences.[2] This strong emphasis on timing coupled with the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold stricter laws regarding Ohio and North Carolina voter ID policies has created confusion over the reason for the block of implementation. Did the Supreme Court find the laws unconstitutional or was the decision solely based on the time constraint?
While the Wisconsin ruling allowed for questioning of the judicial intent, the Texas Voter ID law overturn clearly demonstrated the federal judge’s intent. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District Court ruled that the law creates an “unconstitutional poll tax”[3] and has an “impermissibly discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”[4] Texas has vowed to appeal the ruling on the grounds that the law would be considered constitutional under a Supreme Court decision in June which overturned portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the case Shelby County v. Holder.[5]
Voter ID laws are often viewed as a political issue. Typically Republicans are supportive of the establishment of a law requiring identification to be presented when voting, while democrats are opposed to it.[6] The Wisconsin and Texas cases have been applauded by critics of Voter ID laws, who argue the laws discriminate against the elderly, the poor, and minorities, groups which are often Democrat supporters.[7] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the most prominent critics, states, “Voter ID laws have the potential to deny the right to vote to thousands of registered…. Many of these Americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to secure a government-issued photo ID.”[8] Proponents argue that requirements to produce government issued identification will combat voter fraud.
As the Supreme Court and Federal Courts take action in determining the constitutionality of Voter ID laws in various states, the future of these laws becomes increasingly unclear. While protection from fraudulent activity is necessary for an authentic ballot count, the forms of identification accepted by state governments should be reformed. State governments must provide clear information as to the identification process required, both for voting at the polls and voting through absentee ballots. States should allow a wider range of identification, therefore, creating easier access for voting and minimizing the burden[9] placed upon voters. Both proponents and critics of Voter ID laws must make compromises in order to ensure the voting process is effectively functioning and fair to all voters.
References
2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law/2014/10/09/e52af8fe-4ff4-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html>.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Kendall, Brent. "Voter Identification Laws Hit Roadblock in Wisconsin and Texas." The Wall Street Journal. N.p.,
10 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law-for-midterm-elections-1412905573>.
[4] Whitcomb, Dan. "Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Law Requiring Voter ID at Polls." Reuters. N.p., 9 Oct. 2014.
Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-usa-texas-voterid-idUSKCN0HZ04D20141010>.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Liptak, Adam. "Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas." The New York Times. N.p., 9 Oct.
2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0>
[8] "Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 21 July 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.
<https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet>.
[9] Liptak, Adam. "Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas." The New York Times. N.p., 9 Oct. 2014.
Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0>.
No comments:
Post a Comment