Indiana Voters, Don't Forget Your Photo ID -- If You Have One

(Photo from Mother Jones Magazine).

If Indiana voters show up today at the polls without a photo ID, will they be turned away?

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the answer to that question is almost certainly, yes.

With an anticipated record turn-out looming and possibly thousands of new registered voters heading out to vote in the state that calls itself the Crossroads of America, the swell of interest in this election may well be tamped down, thanks to our friends -- wait for it, wait for it -- the GOP.

While there has never been a documented case of election fraud in Indiana where an unregistered voter has tried to pass himself off as a registered voter, Indiana passed the most restrictive voter identification law in the country in 2005. 

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld that law, claiming that while it might be burdensome for a variety of groups to obtain valid photo ID, the state still had a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of the election process.

What does that mean in English?

Even if you are a registered voter in Indiana, if you don't have a valid driver's license or U.S. passport, you can only cast a provisional ballot -- and they usually don't get counted.

Supporters of this law counter with this argument -- voters can obtain a photo ID at the state's Bureau of Motor Vehicles even if it's not a driver's license, so what's the problem?

Well, voters still have to find a way to get to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles.  And you still have to have the money to pay for it.  And you still have to have valid, back-up documentation that costs money, like certified birth certificates.

No big deal?  Well, if money is tight, how do you reconcile taking time off from work while the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is open to get the ID?  How do you justify spending the money of $4 a gallon gas to get there?

It's been shown time and time again that voter ID laws disproportionately impact minorities, low-income families and the elderly -- people who most often vote for -- wait for it, wait for it -- the Democrats!!

So while advocates of voter ID claim that they just want to prevent voter fraud, isn't the real fraud on the voters who want to vote, but will be turned away?  What happened to all the concern about the faulty Diebold machines and hanging chads??  Where was the integrity in those processes?

John McCain is right about one thing -- the appointment of federal judges, including future Supreme Court appointments, is one of the defining issues of this election.  And we can't afford to have more justices appointed to the Supreme Court who think it's OK to disenfranchise the voters whose voices most need to be heard.

Good luck today, Indiana.  You'll need it.

When she's not raging against the GOP-leaning Supreme Court, you can find her over at her corner of the blogosphere, PunditMom.   Oh, yeah, she also likes to get all political at BlogHer and The Huffington Post, as well.

Comments

[Julie Pippert]

Absolutely---these are classist and nearly certainly racist laws. I notice that's who is traditionally targeted to prevent voting.

I guess the generation who recalls Jim Crow and all that is too much gone.

I am so consistently disappointed by the Supreme Court lately.

Does anyone besides me watch Boston Legal? If so did you see the one where Alan Shore took on the Supreme Court. Oh simply brilliant.

They went after Scalia hardest with Alito in second.

[Julie Pippert]

Okay it stripped out my link to the YouTube clip of Alan's rant on the Supreme Court.

Trying again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GG7sj2APpc

[jaelithe]

Thanks for writing about this today.

My home state of Missouri passed a similar law a few years ago, but our State Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. The Missouri GOP began agitating to revive the voter ID initiative the second the federal court's decision hit the news wires.

(Although, technically the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the Missouri STATE Constitution, by undermining its equal protection clause. Ergo, the state court's ruling should stand. But in an age when the President of the United States can repeatedly and publicly violate the federal Constitution without personal consequence, I suppose some feel state constitutions are free to be treated as toilet paper.)

In Missouri, one must have a social security card, a birth certificate or passport, and a utility bill, bank statement or mortgage bill for proof of address to get a photo ID.

Birth certificates cost $15 a pop and can take weeks to process if done by mail. (I know, because I had to get mine to get a new photo ID after I changed my name due to marriage; my mother had lost the original.) This is in addition to the fees for the photo ID itself, which range from $3-$10 (depending on whether one is getting a driver's or non-driver's license-- the non-driver's ID is more expensive, placing an even bigger burden on the elderly or disabled.) So as it sits, the Missouri law would essentially have been a poll tax of at least $18-$25.

And not everyone has a bank account, or a mortgage or utilities in their name. This is true not just of the poor, the elderly, and the physically disabled, but also of SAHMs (some of who may have all of their utilities and accounts in their husband's name, because he is the income provider), and of young voters still living with their parents.

[Beth B.]

Thanks for writing about this important issue!!!

[John J.]

What is worse is that actual, documented fraud does happen, but when Democrats ask for laws to address these issues, Republicans cry foul and say it will cost too much. The easiest form of fraud is with the new electronic voting machines. The best way to reduce this risk is through a voter verified paper trail. But companies like Diebold (you know, the ATM maker) say a paper trail is too difficult to implement (unlike on ATMs...).

But when it comes to having a chance to suppress a minority that will vote against them, they line right up...

[cynematic]

Proof that we need a new Supreme Court!

[debbie]

While I'm not a fan of term-limits, somehow it seems as though there should be term-limits imposed on the SC inhabitants, given their unduly weighty ability to run things. That branch is a little on the uncheckable side, kwim?

How can we fix that? Maybe require SCJs to be voted on by us?

Hmmm.

[Daisy]

NPR had a guest who was saying that the Indiana law only applies to in-person voting, not absentee ballots. Is this true? If so, what's to stop absentee ballot fraud?