Yes – same as Indiana’s solution. You can cast a provisional ballot. You don’t even have to show up within 10 days afterward.
Iowa considered such a law? I can’t imagine it got far. I’m from Iowa and voting is just so…so…freaking…American…communal…and…I don’t even have the words! Voter fraud in Iowa? Pshaw! This is a place with 99 precincts and caucuses! I had a list of every registered voter in my county (Linn) precinct (a neighborhood in Cedar Rapids) and voter fraud never even crossed my mind.
If Republican legislators create fear in Iowa and enact laws to “protect” the citizens from voter fraud that doesn’t exist, then Republicans in other states with high minority/low income populations can cite Iowa as a reasonable precedent to potentially disenfranchise voters. Republicans have had a hard time suppressing mail in ballots, so this is just another tactic. :o
Can you guys imagine a National Voter ID system? The costs, the potential errors, the misuse of such a card…
Bricker, is this correct?
[ul]
[li]Scenario One: State requires a photo I.D. to vote - not a poll tax[/li][li]Scenario Two: State requires a voter reg form with photo that is not free - poll tax[/li][/ul]
I think you are confusing whether something is constitutional with whether it is a good idea.
Then wouldn’t there be a burden to show that the requirements are necessary to “protect the inegrity and reliability of the electoral process”? That case has not been made here.
Seems odd that the court does not require the state to show it has a problem that needs fixing before placing a roadblock in the way of voting.
Just saying they can imagine a problem is not the same thing as having a problem. Are there even other states that allow voting without an ID having real fraud problems such that Tennessee or Indiana could claim they were just trying to nip a problem in the bud before it grew?
Did Indiana or does Tennessee have a notable problem with voting fraud they need to address?
It is clear the real purpose of this bill is to disenfranchise people and not protect the integrity of a voting system that did not have a problem in this regard.
Nursing home residents, as a class, tend not to have a drivers license or other government ID, and vote in the nursing home in which they live. So a lot of states that have voter ID requirements exempt people who live in nursing homes, figuring that it would be an undue burden to them.
This bill, too, seems to allow people without photo IDs to cast a provisional ballot, subject to review by election officials. Does anybody know how that would work? What standard of review would the election officials use?
It depends on the cost, but the reasoning is that in Harper, the tax was unrelated to voter qualfication, and so even a small charge to vote was unconstitutional. But a state has a legitimate interest in making sure that the elections are secure and only qualified voters vote, so an indirect small charge against the voter that does that is permissible.
No, because generally, the courts operate on the assumption of constitutionality. The logic is that the legislature wouldn’t pass something without a good reason, and wouldn’t pass something they knew to be unconstitutional. So, except when the legislature passes something that’s prima facie unconstitutional, (like Alabama’s “Slavery’s Back” bill or South Dakota’s “Lutheran Church Establishment Act”), the burden is on the people claiming unconstitutionality. They have to show that the requirements are unduly burdensome.
I don’t know if that’s true, though. Harper said that an act “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.”
and
So what distinguished Crawford was that there wasn’t a charge for the photo identification cards in Indiana. If there had been, it might not have met that standard.
What makes Crawford relevant to the Tennessee statute, though, is:
Since the Tennessee law doesn’t even require people who can’t meet the standard to execute the required affidavit within 10 days of their vote, apparently, it seems to fit under Crawford.
This is what I don’t understand.
If I show up with no ID and cast a provisional ballot what happens next? Is my vote counted? Even if I don’t show up later with an ID?
If this is the case (which would obviously circumvent the burden on the voter), then doesn’t this reduce the state’s interest in avoiding fraud?
Put another way, a law that requires ID but counts all provisional ballots does nothing to reduce fraud, and therefore would fail the balancing test even though it places minimal burdens on the voter.
I agree. But since the record in Crawford disclose that the cost of getting a brith certificate was put at issue, and the fact that a birth certificate was necessary to get the ID, it seems to me that Crawford has explored this area.
But you’re right – a court could decide that the cost of a birth certificate is more attenuated from the process, and thus acceptable, where the cost directly for the ID is not.
Well, that’s what I want to find out…how they deal with provisional ballots.
Especially because Stevens seems to recognize a situation where getting a birth certificate could provide an undue burden (see footnote 20)
One wonders what would have happened if the record of the case had shown that a majority of indigent voters lacked copies of their birth certificate. I suggest the possibility that Justice Stevens would have been more sympathetic to Justice Souter’s argument.
In attempting to get the answer to this question, I read the whole bill. Should have done that earlier – shame on me.
I discovered this provision:
So it seems that the law DOES contain an exception that lets someone vote if they cannot afford the ID fee.
Then that would seem to take care of that objection. I’ve always liked that, by the way…the assumption that someone willing to cast a fraudulent vote would shy away from falsely filing an affidavit.
Yup, if that’s in there then it likely meets constitutional muster considering past cases.
I would still perhaps make an argument that allowing a non-ID’ed voter to sign and vote does little to prevent actual voter fraud, and thus shifts the balance described in the Indiana case.
Even if it is constitutional, it’s still bad law, IMO, and directly aimed at discouraging poor voters from casting ballots by making it more difficult for those without readily-available photo ID. It also creates potential for poll workers to deny voters their right to a provisional ballot (which is not unheard of).
It makes sense. The fraudulent vote is one among thousands, millions, and unless there’s some reason to go back and unravel it, it’s invisible. And even then, trying to go back and figure out who was guilty of pretending to be Fred Smith is a near-impossible task.
BUt when the guy’s executing an affidavit right there, it’s much more noticeable, and much scarier for a miscreant to do.
Okay, it’s not unconstitutional. It’s still pointless. 
Well, the legislature disagrees, and I’m afraid that the tie between you and them goes to them.