Requiring photo ID to vote

[Farmer_Jane]

This is a situation in which someone is trying to find a “problem” to fit their “solution”.

There is no problem.

[Bricker]

@Skammer

Take my sister-in-law. She is disabled and cannot drive or fly. As far as I know she has no photo ID, and her only income is Social Security Disability. How can the state force her to pay $X to secure a photo ID to vote, when she already has a voter registration card? And again, what problem is this trying to solve?

Your sister-in-law won’t have any such problems.

The Tenessee Voter ID law says that one valid ID type is:

(3) A valid identification card issued pursuant to § 55-50-336.

Now, § 55-50-336 provides for non-driver photo identification cards, which don’t expire and are available free of charge to “…anyone who is either mentally or physically handicapped and has proof in the form of a certified statement from a licensed doctor saying the person is unable to operate a vehicle.”

[XT]

[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
What about people convicted of drug crimes, who don’t qualify for public assistance?
[/QUOTE]

Are they eligible to vote in any case? What do they do for ID irrespective of voting? How do they prove they are themselves to the parole system? How do they cash checks? I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are large numbers of people who can’t even cash their pay or social security checks because they have zero ID, that they can’t buy alcohol or get restricted prescription drugs, etc etc…all of which would require some type of ID.

My parents and grandparents were freaking ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (so was I, technically) and they all had ID’s that allowed them to cash checks, drive cars and get prescriptions. I saw sh1bu1’s cite, of course, but I’m just having a really hard time believing those numbers, or equating all this to my own experiences. It’s not like I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth…or even born as an American.

-XT

[Bricker]

@johnpost

could be $50 and it expires after 6 or so years.

But not in Tenessee, which is the subject of the legislation at issue. In Tennessee the cost is zero to anyone unable to operate a motor vehicle, and it never expires. It also never expires for those 65 years of age and older.

It costs $12.50 and expires every ten years for everyone else. That’s one dollar and twenty-five cents per year.

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Booze and prescriptions aren’t quite on the same level as voting, rights-wise. For virtually the entire history of this country, all that has been required to vote is a voter registration card. I see no reason to change that.

So if you were a legislator, you would not have voted for this law.

That’s fine, but it doesn’t make the legislature’s actions unconstitutional. This is simply you assigning different priorities to enforcement of the law than the legislature does.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@xtisme

Are they eligible to vote in any case?

Depends on the state. Most restore voting rights, but some (like Florida) don’t except in very limited circumstances.

What do they do for ID irrespective of voting?

I don’t know. Why is that relevant?

How do they prove they are themselves to the parole system?

I don’t know that either. Again, how is that relevant?

I find it incredibly hard to believe that there are large numbers of people who can’t even cash their pay or social security checks because they have zero ID, that they can’t buy alcohol or get restricted prescription drugs, etc etc…all of which would require some type of ID.

Go read sh1bu1’s post/cite.

Now, I’ll grant you that most of the people we’re talking about will probably not vote even if they can, but that’s not the point.

[Voyager]

@CitizenPained

This is a situation in which someone is trying to find a “problem” to fit their “solution”.

There is no problem.

Of course there is a problem. Too many poor minority people vote, and vote for the wrong party. Reasonably middle class people people have drivers licenses and don’t see it as an issue.

IIRC, when Georgia was trying to do this, it turned out that there were relatively few places to get an ID, and most were far away the poor.

If the law also included provisions to set up id card issuing centers in every school, say, then it would be fine. But that would subvert the true purpose, wouldn’t it?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Bricker

So if you were a legislator, you would not have voted for this law.

That’s fine, but it doesn’t make the legislature’s actions unconstitutional. This is simply you assigning different priorities to enforcement of the law than the legislature does.

I don’t think the law is unconstitutional because it’s pointless. I think it’s unconstitutional, at least as written, and pointless.

[Uncle_Jocko]

The Iowa legislature discussed the same kind of voter ID measure this year. Even though it did include a provision to provide IDs free of charge, it didn’t advance to a vote. The fact that these types of measures are springing up at this juncture is interesting, I think.

This type of law wouldn’t affect me at all. I already have a driver’s license. Practically everybody I know has a license. Showing an ID to vote would not be a burden to me or those folks. But … might it be a burden to someone else? Even if the state provided free IDs, there would be some number of residents who wouldn’t bother/wouldn’t know to go get them … and that increases the burden of voting for those people. Which would, inevitably, decrease the likelihood of them voting at all. Who would benefit in such a case?

As CitizenPained and Folicin mention, what is the problem we are trying to solve here? Our esteemed legislators mention the threat of widespread voter fraud … which hasn’t happened and isn’t happening. Not sure what the deep dread of such an event could be. While the spoken goal is “Stop Voter Fraud!” is the unspoken, true goal one of depressing turnout among groups who tend to vote Democratic?

I may be reaching a bit too far (I’m sure many of our legislators are truly concerned about voter fraud, and as I said, showing an ID would be no big deal for the huge majority of Americans) … but I do find it more than a tad interesting that the biggest boosters of this legislation have been Republicans. Take that as you will.

[Jas09]

@Bricker

But not in Tenessee, which is the subject of the legislation at issue. In Tennessee the cost is zero to anyone unable to operate a motor vehicle, and it never expires. It also never expires for those 65 years of age and older.

It costs $12.50 and expires every ten years for everyone else. That’s one dollar and twenty-five cents per year.

I didn’t realize there was a minimum cost below which it was no longer a poll tax. One might note that the last poll tax declared unconstitutional was $2.00.

It seems to me that if I am not unable to operate a motor vehicle, I am required to pay $1.25 per year to vote in TN (unless I am over 65, live in a nursing home or have a religious objection).

What am I missing?

[Bricker]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I don’t think the law is unconstitutional because it’s pointless. I think it’s unconstitutional, at least as written, and pointless.

OK. And in light of Crawford v. Marion County, on what basis do you distinguish the present law?

[Whack-a-Mole]

@Bricker

OK. And in light of Crawford v. Marion County, on what basis do you distinguish the present law?

See post #3 where the differences are explained.

[Jas09]

@Bricker

OK. And in light of Crawford v. Marion County, on what basis do you distinguish the present law?

The difference I see is that the Indiana law provided a mechanism for voting without an ID - you just had to show up and sign a statement saying you couldn’t afford one within 10 days of the election.

My question would be strictly this: does the TN law have a way for me to vote without paying money if I am healthy, young, and able to drive?

[shiftless]

@Skammer

Any ideas on the bizarre exemption for nursing home residents? What’s the purpose of that?

Struck me as odd too.

Probably because they all vote and the poor, homeless people don’t. Heck, where I vote you get to go to the front of the line if you are over 65, which smacks of favoritism to me. Or maybe because we can all envision ourselves in a nursing home but don’t believe we will ever be homeless.

[Steve_MB]

@Bricker

OK. And in light of Crawford v. Marion County, on what basis do you distinguish the present law?

The answer has already been posted – the law in the Crawford case enabled any voter to obtain the required ID free of charge. As you yourself noted, this is not the case for the law under discussion here.

[Kevbo]

@xtisme

Shrug It’s been required in New Mexico for a while now.
-XT

Say what? I’ve voted in every election since I was old enough, the last 25 years or so in NM, and have yet to be required to produce ID.

[Bricker]

@Jas09

I didn’t realize there was a minimum cost below which it was no longer a poll tax. One might note that the last poll tax declared unconstitutional was $2.00.

It seems to me that if I am not unable to operate a motor vehicle, I am required to pay $1.25 per year to vote in TN (unless I am over 65, live in a nursing home or have a religious objection).

What am I missing?

I think you’re missing the reasoning of the 6-3 result in Crawford.

In Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663 (1966) , the Court held that Virginia could not condition the right to vote in a state election on the payment of a poll tax of $1.50. . . . Although the State’s justification for the tax was rational, it was invidious because it was irrelevant to the voter’s qualifications.

Thus, under the standard applied in Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. In Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780 (1983) , however, we confirmed the general rule that “evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious and satisfy the standard set forth in Harper. 460 U. S., at 788, n. 9. 

.
.
.
The State has identified several state interests that arguably justify the burdens that SEA 483 imposes on voters and potential voters. While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State’s interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
.
.
.
Petitioners ask this Court, in effect, to perform a unique balancing analysis that looks specifically at a small number of voters who may experience a special burden under the statute and weighs their burdens against the State’s broad interests in protecting election integrity. Petitioners urge us to ask whether the State’s interests justify the burden imposed on voters who cannot afford or obtain a birth certificate and who must make a second trip to the circuit court clerk’s office after voting.
.
.
.
In their briefs, petitioners stress the fact that all of the Republicans in the General Assembly voted in favor of SEA 483 and the Democrats were unanimous in opposing it.21 In her opinion rejecting petitioners’ facial challenge, Judge Barker noted that the litigation was the result of a partisan dispute that had “spilled out of the state house into the courts.” 458 F. Supp. 2d, at 783. It is fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role in the decision to enact SEA 483. If such considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may also assume that SEA 483 would suffer the same fate as the poll tax at issue in Harper.

But if a nondiscriminatory law is supported by valid neutral justifications, those justifications should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators. The state interests identified as justifications for SEA 483 are both neutral and sufficiently strong to require us to reject petitioners’ facial attack on the statute. The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting “the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Anderson, 460 U. S., at 788, n. 9.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed

[/quote]

[fumster]

This my favorite:

Now, § 55-50-336 provides for non-driver photo identification cards, which don’t expire and are available free of charge to “…anyone who is either mentally or physically handicapped and has proof in the form of a certified statement from a licensed doctor saying the person is unable to operate a vehicle.”

Yeah, that’s not raising the bar high: "It’s OK, just drive down..Oh, you can’t drive, well then take the cab… oh, you don’t have fare, OK walk..Oh, can’t walk, OK take the free shuttle… Oh, that was cut from the budget, OK get a friend to take you to your doctor…Oh, you don’t have a doctor…OK, roll your wheelchair in front of a bus and when you get to the Emergency Room ask them for a letter.

[Bricker]

@Steve_MB

The answer has already been posted – the law in the Crawford case enabled any voter to obtain the required ID free of charge. As you yourself noted, this is not the case for the law under discussion here.

Yes, that’s true, and that may indeed be a turning point for this law. But I kinda doubt it, because the attack in Crawford pointed out that in order to get the free ID, voters had to produce their birth certificate, which cost money. So the Crawford Court considered the burden associated with spending a small amount of money, and concluded that the issue is not the money, but whether the restriction is related to the reliability of the election process or not. “…evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious and satisfy the standard set forth in Harper.”

[Bricker]

@sh1bu1

This my favorite: Yeah, that’s not raising the bar high: "It’s OK, just drive down..Oh, you can’t drive, well then take the cab… oh, you don’t have fare, OK walk..Oh, can’t walk, OK take the free shuttle… Oh, that was cut from the budget, OK get a friend to take you to your doctor…Oh, you don’t have a doctor…OK, roll your wheelchair in front of a bus and when you get to the Emergency Room ask them for a letter.

SImilar justifications were upheld in Crawford, so I am glad it’s your favorite.