Before leaving my house today to join in the North Carolina “Moral Monday” demonstration in downtown Raleigh, I saw MSNBC correspondent Craig Melvin do a story on the protests.  He interviewed Jotaka Eaddy, NAACP Senior Director for Voting Rights, asking her opinion about the interesting demographics of the arrestees.  


The crowds at these rallies have been overall fairly diverse, and people of a variety of races and cultures have joined the smaller group of hearty souls volunteering to be arrested.  But by the numbers, the latter group – the arrestees – has been a remarkably white, older, middle- or upper-middle class set.  During the news segment, video footage of Moral Monday arrests ran on a split screen opposite the interview.  Melvin observed that while the protests have been led by the NAACP, an organization created to support people of color, a lot of white folks have joined in.  Viewers were shown arrests of a few of them; a 60-ish, carefully-coiffed lady in a tailored silk blouse; a woman in her early 30’s in business attire; an older, bearded professorial-looking gentleman, who, incidentally, was wearing a grey hoodie to signify his allegiance to Trayvon Martin’s cause. 

Eaddy’s answer to the question about this profile of demonstrators was perfectly fine.  She explained how the new voting restrictions will affect voters across demographic lines; not just minority and poor voters, but young voters, seniors, and the disabled as well.  College students will have a harder time voting under the law, and elderly and disabled people of any race or economic status are statistically less likely to possess one of the strictly defined, government-issued photo ID’s required under the bill.  Indeed, injustice aside, the law is poorly conceived logistically, and may impact all voters.  Early voting days are well-used in North Carolina.  If we eliminate them, we will see longer lines on election days. 

But truth be told, many of the people volunteering to be arrested at the General Assembly building during these demonstrations are among those least likely to be affected by the pending bill.  They are professional, educated, employed or retired.  They likely already possess a valid North Carolina driver’s license.  If not, they are likely able to obtain the official documents they need to apply for a state ID.  In fact, it’s their ordinary access to resources and services that allows them to choose to go to jail for political reasons.  They are likely to have some professional, civic, or academic familiarity with the workings of the justice system, as well as access to money for bail and legal fees, free time or flex-time, and support networks. 

That doesn't mean it isn't hard to do this; it takes guts for anyone.  Some arrestees risk professional or familial censure.  Some of them are facing down fears of panic that can arise from sitting in a jail cell.  All of them are agreeing to an utter loss of freedom.  And nobody is making them do it.

So why are they there?  Why do they put their bodies on the line; offering their wrists up to be cuffed, climbing on a prisoner transport bus, staring into the glare of the mugshot light; fingertips inked for prints, and file into a jail cell to await release on to a downtown street in the wee hours of the next morning? 

They go to show allegiance to fellow citizens who will be affected by this bill.  They go in solidarity with those who will soon learn that although they are eligible, registered voters, state lawmakers have chosen to proactively and tangibly discourage them from voting.  

These arrestees exemplify an impressive combination of compassion, insight, and rage. Realize, the oldest of them have witnessed a better way than this.  They have been here during a time - over the last half-century - during which their country learned in fits and starts how to improve access to the polls.  They have seen, over these decades, legions of leaders from both parties strive to make it more possible for everyone to participate in the democratic process.  They have seen both conservative and liberal politicians say, this is critical.  Everyone must have a part in selecting their representatives.  It is essential to the integrity of our system.

Now our arrestees see something very different - something sinister – taking hold in powerful places.  They see conscious efforts to dismantle those decades of good work.  They watch public servants making cynical, short-sighted, and destructive policy decisions.  And they are wise enough to know the damage will be real, and it will hit hardest those who are least able to stand up to power. 

Understand what our arrestees understand: that strict voter ID requirements and reduced voting hours serve no legitimate purpose, and could potentially affect over 300,000 NC voters.  Understand that there will be folks who have counted on expanded voting hours in past elections, who will struggle to make it to the polls, or will be unable to wait hours on Election Day for their turn to vote.  Understand that there will be registered voters who will arrive at the polls on Election Day without possession of an accepted form of ID, who will be turned away.

Understand that there is simply no justification for strict ID requirements.  We have years of evidence showing that protecting the ballot from fraud is simply and effectively done without such requirements.  The threat of voter fraud has proven to be insignificant.  Of course, to the legislators currently in office in North Carolina, "insignificant" is too high a risk.  They have made it clear that they would rather see a number of eligible voters turned away from the polls than a single fraudulent vote cast.  Even still, a higher level of ballot security can be achieved without disenfranchising anyone.  The threat of fraud is so low that high-enough security standards are easily met by requiring voters to provide more readily obtainable forms of ID, such as voter registration cards, medical cards, work ID’s, bank cards, student ID’s, nursing home residence papers, even utility bills or other official mail.  It would be hard to even quantify how low a risk there is that someone would determine to impersonate another voter, arrive at the right polling place at an opportune time, present any card or document in their victim’s name, be handed a ballot, and cast a fraudulent vote. 

It is an understanding of this undemocratic solution to a non-existent problem that has infuriated and mobilized our arrestees.  They see that despite having been presented with copious research and personal testimony on such hazards to be faced by legitimate voters, our state legislators are stubbornly voting this bill into law. 

Our arrestees are standing up in the name of those who can’t.  They are saying with their actions that if these lawmakers want to marginalize some of the very people they represent; people who can’t afford to go to jail to prove a point, then they themselves will go.  Enthusiastically, they will go. 

Think about that.  How does it make you feel, knowing there are those whose own right to vote is not threatened by this bill, who are carving out space in their lives to be arrested protesting it?  I’ll tell you how it makes me feel.  It makes me feel teary.  It makes me feel awe, and gratitude.  It gives me a lump in my throat, and hope.  Today it made me think about a piece of music I cherish; the plaintive and stirring U2 song, “One”.    

Some of the lyrics of the song could be said to reflect on how things go wrong between people.  Listening to it today, the first few verses made me think about the mentality leading to the creation of the malevolent legislation we're seeing.  I hear the way these guys talk about the constituents they don’t care for.  I see how they choose to govern those who have so little - by starving them of support, tampering with their rights - while expecting them to participate as fully and effectively as anybody else in American society.  From the song: “Will it make it easier on you now, you got someone to blame… You act like you never had love, and you want me to go without…you ask me to enter, then you make me crawl… Did I ask too much?  more than a lot?  You gave me nothing and that's all I've got.”

Of course, most of the song is explicitly about who we as a people should be.  It’s about how we are different from each other, but we share "one love, one blood, one life."  And that "we get to carry each other."  

We get to.  
We get to carry each other.  
We get to carry each other, people.

*************************************************************************
One

Is it getting better?
Or do you feel the same?
Will it make it easier on you now?
You got someone to blame
You say

One love
One life
When it's one need
In the night
One love
We get to share it
Leaves you baby if you
Don't care for it

Did I disappoint you?
Or leave a bad taste in your mouth?
You act like you never had love
And you want me to go without
Well it's 
Too late
Tonight
To drag the past out into the light
We're one, but we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One

Have you come here for forgiveness?
Have you come to raise the dead?
Have you come here to play Jesus?
To the lepers in your head

Did I ask too much?
More than a lot.
You gave me nothing,
Now it's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
Well we hurt each other
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt

One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life
With each other
Sisters
Brothers
One life
But we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One.  One.

Very bad news today from the Supreme Court of the United States.  The court struck down the requirement placed on certain states that they clear with the federal government any changes they want to make to state election law.  The states in question have carried that burden due to a history of voting rights violations.  This requirement slowed down Florida, for example, in at least one instance - if you can believe Florida was slowed down at all - in its efforts to change election law.  The practice for which they were denied clearance in August of 2012 had to do with private groups holding voter registration drives.  The GOP-led State of Florida wanted to prevent groups such as the League of Women Voters and Rock the Vote from sponsoring registration drives.  The state’s request to do so was denied by the Justice Department.  (Of course, Florida Republicans still got away with a plentiful array of other voter disenfranchisement tactics.)

With the preclearance requirement struck down, Florida Republicans would now be able to block such voter registration drives, and opponents of the move would just have to fight it out in court.  Without any requirement for preclearance, states that have formerly been hampered in making drastic changes to ID requirements, early voting hours, etc., will now have an easier time. 

The only ray of hope here is that the court actually left a little room open to bring back preclearance requirements for states that currently show a propensity towards voter disenfranchisement.  The Court’s justification for striking down the law did not reject the idea of preclearance outright.  Rather, the Justices decided that the current list of states burdened with the requirement was developed utilizing a now-outdated formula, reportedly based on information gathered in the Sixties and Seventies.  The Justices claim that such information simply can’t tell us enough about which states are acting in bad faith now.    

Well guess what; they have a point.

In the last few election cycles, we have seen bad behavior from a number of states that have never been required to get federal preclearance in order to change election law.  Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio have outdone themselves in recent years in developing creative ways to keep voters they don't like from voting.  As my own North Carolina legislature enthusiastically pushes to slash early voting hours and institute strict new voter ID requirements, only certain counties here have had – until today - a preclearance requirement.  If a new formula was developed that truly gauges which statewide efforts across the country actually make it harder for eligible citizens to register and vote, and a whole new list of states requiring preclearance was created, there is no doubt the North Carolina General Assembly would be looking at a new barrier to breach before rushing this type of legislation through.  Similarly, states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, which have brashly lead the way in making voting harder, would most certainly fall under any realistic new formula.

So if Congress were to respond to this Supreme Court decision with quickly written and passed new legislation, using an updated formula that places preclearance requirements on any law that attempts to make it harder for legitimate, registered voters to cast a ballot, then wow, it would transform this interesting, but currently devastating, opinion into a godsend.  Maybe that will happen someday, after a lot of damage has been done.  After a lot of marginalized citizens are kept from the polls, and they grow angry enough to start making noise.  After more eyebrows are raised by news footage of increasingly frequent long lines at the polls, wrapped around city blocks, old folks waiting hours in bad weather to vote.  When the average citizen better understands why it is so hard for some people - voters with low access to everyday resources - to obtain copies of new, strictly-defined, government-issued photo ID cards.  When the general public eventually absorbs the fact that because of this plethora of unnecessary and politically-driven changes to election law, American citizens who have a right to vote are being kept from the ballot box.  Maybe then, someday, the tide of public opinion will turn against these laws.  Congress will get the message, and there will be new laws written and passed that show zero tolerance for state election practices that infringe on voting rights.

But we know that won't happen now.  It won't happen before 2014, it's unlikely to happen before 2016, and after that, well - it’s hard to say.  The average citizen, a moderate voter, understandably doesn’t spend hours a day analyzing court decisions or election law.  The average TV viewer will only stay tuned to shrill advocacy and partisan bickering for so much of their time.  How long will it take the average American voter to grasp the level of extremism driving today's Republican Party?  How long to become alarmed by its regressive policies?  How long for dismay to translate into strong opinions, and then into pointed votes?  And as more voters become disturbed enough to vote against bad election law, how many of them will have access to the ballot to cast those votes?

On October 2nd, Pennsylvania Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson informed Governor Tom Corbett and Secretary of State Carol Aichele that they could not implement strict, new Voter ID requirements until after the federal election next month. 

Earlier, in July, Judge Simpson had upheld the ID requirements, signed into law in March.  This ruling was immediately appealed to the State Supreme Court by the group of plaintiffs opposing it; a group which includes attorneys for the ACLU, the NAACP, and registered voters who had been unable to produce documents necessary to obtain the ID.

The State Supreme Court then sent the case back to Simpson with explicit instructions to determine whether any voters would be disenfranchised by the law.  Simpson held a new hearing, in which the DOS asserted that, despite a multitude of unanticipated glitches, they were bending over backwards to ease the process of obtaining ID.  They assured the judge that all eligible voters could obtain the necessary ID by Election Day. 

However, the plaintiff group easily demonstrated, with witness after witness, that there were so many hurdles and snafus occurring in the process that there was no chance that every voter needing ID could get it by Election Day.  Judge Simpson duly found that the law would indeed cause voter disenfranchisement, and he enjoined its implementation until at least after this election. 

The rub: he allowed the state, since they intend to go forward implementing the law for future elections, the latitude to ask for but not require government-issued photo ID for this election.  Simpson also allowed that the state’s voter outreach materials could be designed to reflect the eventual need for proper ID.

The situation going forward from this slightly complicated decision announced on October 2nd would have been ripe for confusion even if Pennsylvania State officials had any intention of acting in good faith.  Pennsylvania State officials did not have any intention of acting in good faith.

Following the decision, official state voter education efforts have ranged in approach from what could be generously described as ineffective and confusing, to deliberately misleading.  Ultimately it has become clear that there is a conscious effort to discourage voters without proper ID from coming to the polls, by implying that without ID they will be denied a ballot.

I posted previously about the first signs that the PA DOS would not go out of its way to reassure voters that they would not be tripped up at the polls on Election Day if they didn't have the right identification.  The official Pennsylvania voter education website, votespa.com, had pulled out the stops when it was time to inform voters they would have to show ID.  Once ordered to drop the requirement, they made subtle changes to small-font wording in graphics that retained the overall message that voters would have to show ID to vote.  As of this writing, the confusing homepage graphics remain.

Since then, the disinformation tactics have grown egregiously worse, including mailings, ads, and robo-calls still telling voters that they must produce ID to vote. 

These dirty tricks by top Pennsylvania officials, public servants, expressly charged with facilitating fair elections for the furtherance of democracy, shock the conscience.  Corrupting the central process of the democratic system, the vote, is not only morally wrong, it is pragmatically stupid.  Apparently these political leaders cannot imagine a time in which their own views and policies would be so popular that they would be eager to see the highest levels of voter participation possible, and would want to be able to rely on a sturdy, credible election process.

As various transparent attempts at suppression have come to light, the same (irrepressible) plaintiff group has assembled proof that the disenfranchisement forbade by the State Supreme Court, and ruled against by Judge Simpson, is occurring now.

On Friday the group filed a petition against the State to appear before Judge Simpson asking that he intervene again and shut down these increasingly aggressive and devious efforts to reduce turnout among - let's be clear - likely Obama voters.

Some of the text from the ACLU press release on Friday:

Judge Asked to Order Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to Stop
Misleading Voters About the Need for ID on Election Day
False and Misleading Information May Lead to Some Voters Staying Home

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE  October 19, 2012

HARRISBURG, PA - The legal team challenging Pennsylvania’s voter ID law filed a petition today asking Judge Robert Simpson to order the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to stop disseminating false information about the need for photo ID on Election Day and to make it to clear to the public that ID will not be required to vote in the November 6 election. This request comes in the wake of several recent mailings by both governmental and non-governmental entities that contained outdated information about the law and have added to voter confusion.

In their petition, (the plaintiffs) argue that unless this misinformation is corrected, some eligible voters will stay home on Election Day because they mistakenly believe they need ID to vote in this election…(T)he Commonwealth has circulated misinformation about the voter ID law to voters. Last week, thousands of Pennsylvania seniors received a mailing…that included a Dept. of State card about the voter ID law. The card incorrectly states: "Voters are required to show photo ID on Election Day.”

(C)ounsel has received dozens of complaints (about) radio and TV ads that still say voters need photo ID to vote.  As recently as October 11, some PennDOT locations were still displaying outdated posters and information telling people they need ID to vote.  In their motion, petitioners argue that the Commonwealth has failed to clearly inform the public that the voter ID law will not be in effect for the November 2012 election.  Rather than creating ads that clearly state this information, the Commonwealth instead chose to continue with its “Show It” campaign and merely add the phrase “if you have it” in small print to note that ID would not be required.  These minimal changes to the “Show It” campaign are not enough to combat previous efforts by the Commonwealth to publicize the law, including multiple press releases, press conferences, and a postcard mailing in September to all registered voters.

The petitioners are asking the Commonwealth Court to issue an order requiring that the Commonwealth send notices with correct information to anyone who received false information from the state since October 2 about the law; immediately cease running any ads that still tell voters they must have photo ID to vote; re-word robocalls scheduled for the run-up to the election; issue a clarifying press release to all media outlets; and direct Secretary Carol Aichele to hold a press conference announcing that photo ID is not required to vote this Election Day.

 Sara Mullen
Associate Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania

(For the full text of the press release, and the petition itself, which contains illuminating examples of the State's sneak attack, go to the Pennsylvania ACLU website.)

Judge Simpson is a Republican, and has not by any means rolled over to the plaintiffs on this issue.  It took several rounds of hearings and appeals before he agreed to grant the injunction, and that was only a reprieve to the law for this election.  But he did ask discerning questions during the hearings that indicated a concern that voters not be shut out of the democratic process.  His hesitation to strike down the law altogether appeared to be based on a confidence in the State that they were motivated by legitimate concerns about the security of the ballot, and committed to protecting the rights of eligible voters. 

At some point he must surely begin to feel offended by their failure to live up to that confidence.  Simpson is no partisan zealot.  He comes across as professional and fair-minded.  And he is human.  So it must begin to feel like a slap in the face to find that his trust in the Republican leaders of the Commonwealth has been flouted in this way.

There was a big victory for voter access in Pennsylvania this month, but you wouldn't know it by looking at the official State voter-information website. 

This picture is on the current homepage of the Pennsylvania Department of State voter information page, votesPA.com. 

As of this writing, when voters go to the site for polling-place hours, registration status, and what to bring on Election Day; they see the same vivid VOTER ID graphic now as they did before the Voter ID law was struck down.  When the law was being put in place, the State filled the better part of the homepage with the attention-grabbing bulletin shown above.

Then on October 2, Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson said that because of its potential to disenfranchise voters, the law could not be implemented for the 2012 Presidential Election.  No ID required!  Everybody votes!

It is hard to tell from the website that anything has changed.

Before the court decision, the wording on the votesPA homepage read: "Voters will be required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day."

After the decision, the wording was changed to read: "Voters will be asked, but not required to show an acceptable photo ID on Election Day."

(Emphasis mine!)

When voters click to go to the more detailed page for additional guidance, they see almost exactly the same information they saw before the law was blocked.  The big red banner headline that before, said "Photo ID Required for November 2012 Election," now says "Photo ID Requested for November 2012 Election."  (Again, emphasis mine.)  The page contains the same admonishment that "All photo IDs must contain an expiration date that is current."  It contains the same list of strict, specific forms of acceptable government-issued photo ID.  It has a link to the same complex set of FAQ's, walking voters through the different forms of ID, and the steps one must take to obtain a secure PennDOT ID, including the requirement of a birth certificate with a raised seal.   

It is left to the voter without ID to surmise, "All this means I can vote this year!"  Using these directions, this voter is just as likely now, as before the ruling, to conclude that they may as well stay home.  

Pennsylvania voters without ID have been chastised repeatedly by government officials for complaining about having to learn the new rules and jump through hoops to vote.  Now when these voters proactively seek out information in order to be prepared, they are treated to a slick trick by the State.     

How will Republican Party officials feel in later years, looking back on this time?  A time when they tried to win elections by keeping voters away from the polls.  A time when they coldly dismissed the complaints of their fellow citizens, fellow voters, who they forced to jump through unexpected and untenable hoops, before permitting them to exercise the most critical right held in a democracy. 

How will it be for these officials, when a grandson or granddaughter says,
"Today in class we compared and contrasted the Jim Crow years with the Voting Wars of 2012?  What did you do during that time?  Did you help the people?"




They will have to explain to their progeny that far from helping the people, they helped create and impose such laws. 

That they purposely - in the name of a phantom crisis - placed an unforgivable burden on registered, eligible voters.  That they used dirty tricks, excluding people whose names no longer matched those on their birth certificates, due to adoption or marriage.  Barricading voters by virtue of requiring long hours away from work that they cannot manage.  Usurping the constitutional rights of rural voters who are unable to leave their own precincts and travel on a weekday 200 miles to a county with a DMV office.  Sending hundreds of thousands of people into a panic just before Election Day as they - determined to vote  - scramble to find the right documents.  Hoping to pass the subjective inspection of a clerk in a driver’s license center.

How will Republicans feel when they see themselves in hindsight, demanding of old women that they produce papers they don’t have, papers they’d never needed before, before allowing them to help select their President?  How will they reflect on having told enthusiastic college boys that their state university ID won't cut it?  On having tossed thousands of names off voter rolls just weeks before Election Day, sending out letters saying, “Dear voter, it appears you are dead.  If you are not dead, please call us and prove it by November 6th.”  On curtailing poll hours during the busiest times of day and week, times during which the lines have grown longer each year?

How will they describe their own legacy as a public servant?  How will they defend the way they let their own fear of a particular outcome lead them to prey on others’ fears - of the specter of thugs lurking at polls, plotting to cast fraudulent votes? Do they ever worry that history may cast them as the thugs?

• Students will learn how in Florida, just before a federal election, officials made reckless purges of voter rolls, even though voter-list maintenance is the responsibility of practiced election officials year round, normally done month-by-month, to prevent sudden unnecessary removals. 

• Textbooks will include sections on how in Ohio, officials slashed early-voting hours during times that overlapped with those used mostly by black voters.  Students can draw their own conclusions about that for extra credit. 

• Teachers will lecture on how in New Hampshire, for the first time in 2012, officials tried to ban college students from using their dormitory addresses to register.
  

• High school students will learn how in Pennsylvania, Texas, and South Carolina, officials wrote Voter ID laws that bore an eerie similarity to Jim Crow laws.  Class reports will be written on how in both eras, practices were designed to wear down and discourage voters.  How in both eras, systems allowed for capricious judgments by government clerks and poll-workers to determine who got to vote.  How in both eras, self-appointed citizen “poll-watchers” were allowed to stand inside polling places, appraising voters in line and challenging the eligibility of anyone they decided looked unscrupulous. 

How’s that gonna be; justifying these inexcusable laws to a young person standing before them one day? 

How will the leaders of today’s Republican Party explain,
in the coming years, that once upon a time
they sought powerful positions in a democracy
by obstructing the right to vote?

“Nothing is so necessary to liberty as the freedom to vote without bans or barriers.”  President Lyndon B. Johnson

On a practical level, this helps a lot, and thank goodness for it. 
The State is in court today trying to prove to a judge that they can make it easier to get the ID.  Properly registered voters were having real trouble obtaining all the necessary documents, so this change will help.  

Crowding and long waits at PennDOT centers are a problem.  That will only get worse as voters learn about the new law and pour in to get the ID they need in time for Election Day.  Voter advocates in the state are still pressing for weekend and evening hours to be established, a dedicated line at for those needing Voter ID, and temporary centers to be set up in the nine counties that don't have one.  But this change will ensure voters only have to make one trip to a PennDOT center, and no trips to other government offices to obtain vital records.

On another level, this change further questions the purpose of the law. 
Why can't this process take place at the polls?  Why can't PA voters show a utility bill, medical card, or pay stub at the polling place, like voters do in some states?  Why can't PA voters sign in for a ballot, as voters do in some states, allowing poll-workers to compare that signature to the one on the voter registration card?  How does a card obtained by providing verbal information to a PennDOT clerk better ensure that the voter is the voter they claim to be? 

When the requirement at the polls is for readily available information, something anyone can bring from home, it impacts every voter in the same way. 
When the requirement at the polls is for a very specific, government-issued photo ID, it adds a step to the process that disproportionately impacts some voters. 
It challenges voters without cars, or time off work. 
It burdens voters with disabilities, or small kids in tow. 
It imposes a big hurdle to voting for those who live down the road from the polling place in their precinct, but must travel long-distances to a PennDOT center.  

What would happen in Pennsylvania if the new law applied equally to all voters? 
If, in order to vote in this Presidential election, voters who happen to have a driver's license or military ID also had to go in person to PennDOT center to get a Voter ID? 

If all voters were told that regardless of their age or voting history, or time of residence in a precinct, there is a card that they do not possess now that they must present in order to be handed a ballot?

If they were told that it wouldn't matter if they have voted in the same school basement every year.

If they were told that it won't help if the poll workers in their precinct know them by first name.

If they were told that the following scenario just isn't the State's problem: an older lady gets her driver's license renewed every year for ID, but hasn't driven in years.  She lives in a rural area.  She always has her adult son in the city come out on Election Day and drive her to the polls.  But she doesn't have a way to get to a neighboring county before then to get her ID.  With the new law, if the lady's driver's license instead expired over a year ago - a much more common scenario - she cannot vote without a Voter ID.

What if they were told that the following scenario just isn't the State's problem: a young man with autism doesn't drive, but has a current PennDOT non-driver's photo ID.  He has a volunteer scheduled to come to his apartment on Election Day to get him to the polling place.  But he just learned about the new law, and isn't sure how to get this new ID.  With the new law, if he did not have a current PennDOT non-driver's photo ID - a much more common scenario, he could not vote.

It is even hard to imagine what would be happening in Pennsylvania right now if this were the scenario: a duly-registered voter with a current driver's license, flex-time at work, a car, and easy proximity to a PennDOT center is told that in order to vote in this Presidential election, they must go in person to a PennDOT center on one of the 29 weekdays between now and Election Day, provide the clerk with their name, address, Social Security number and date of birth, and pose for a new DOS photo Voter ID.


The law serves no purpose, and creates barriers to the ballot for certain voters and not others. 
It's a farce to pretend that this Voter ID card is needed to protect the ballot from the threat of the phantom voter impersonator. 
It is a definitive case of unequal access to the ballot. 
There is no justification for this law, and it reeks more with every passing week.

The Case

Applewhite v The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the case now under review by the state Supreme Court, is named for one its plaintiffs, Viviette Applewhite.  A group of lawyers headed by the ACLU represented her and several other plaintiffs in July before PA Commonwealth Judge Robert Simpson.  They asked for the law, which establishes strict new identification requirements for voters, to be struck down.  The plaintiff’s group asserts that the law’s requirements for voter ID are unnecessarily strict; that they are so specific and demanding that some registered voters will be barred from voting the polls. 

Applewhite is 93 and does not have a driver's license or Social Security card.  The plaintiff was adopted at a young age, and the name on her birth certificate is Viviette Brooks.  Applewhite is unable to locate adoption records from the 1920's showing her name change.  Under the new law, Applewhite, who has been voting for decades, would not be allow to cast a vote for President on November 6th.  In a decision announced on August 15th, Judge Simpson declined to strike down the law.  The current case is an appeal to that one.

(A couple of days after losing her case, Applewhite was awarded a photo-ID card at a PennDOT Driver’s License Center.  The Department of State boasted that this was an example of the kind of "case-by-case" decision they have always insisted might be helpful to some.  For voters now trying to get ID, there is no comfort knowing that the subjective decision of a PennDOT clerk could determine whether or not they vote this year.)

The Question

The plaintiffs are asking the Court to halt the implementation of the law before November 6th.  They say the law is not necessary to prevent voter fraud, and that it is simply not possible for all registered voters to be informed about the new requirements and provided with the necessary ID in time for the election.

Supporters of the law feel that it will prevent voter impersonation.  They acknowledge that there is no evidence that voter impersonation is occurring, but cite concerns about public confidence in the security and integrity of the ballot.  They feel that requiring every voter to present a current, government-issued photo ID at the polls is a reasonable expectation, and that most voters should not have any difficulty obtaining the right ID. 

The Court

This state Supreme Court has only six members currently – a seventh is sitting out due to a fraud investigation unrelated to this case.  Of the six, three are Republican and three are Democratic.  In the case of a split decision, the law will stand.

The Chief Justice is a Republican, Ronald Castille.  The other Republicans are Justice Michael Eakin, and Justice Thomas Saylor.  The Democrats are Justices Max Baer, Debra Todd, and Seamus McCaffery.

The Attorneys

ACLU attorney David Gersch represented the plaintiffs on Thursday.  The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was represented by John Kerr, and attorney Alfred Putnam appeared as Council for Governor Tom Corbett.

The Arguments

David Gersch, arguing for plaintiffs, asserted that the Voter ID law will "disenfranchise (completely prevent from voting) many voters, and burden others."  Gersch stated that the harm to the Commonwealth of upholding the law is negligible, while the harm to the electorate is immediate and irreparable.  He stated that the severity of the burden in the original case was not correctly analyzed, and that by rushing the law into effect, there will be eligible, registered voters who cannot vote in this election.

Several Justices telegraphed a reluctance to overturn the law simply because the law was passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor, and because the legislator has a right to regulate electoral processes, and because Judge Simpson has already upheld the law once.  Chief Justice Ronald Castille commented that the fact that the State may be "rushing" to implement the law is not a legal reason by which the Court can overturn the first ruling.  (It appears possible the decision may turn mostly on these questions, although the Justices went on to entertain some discussion of the merits.)

Gersch claimed that the “vice” of the law is in its failure to guarantee that its expectations could be met by all voters.   He stressed that for the law to be constitutional, all electors (voters) must be given or be able to obtain the necessary ID to vote.  Gersch argued emphatically that is simply not possible to do so in time for this election.  He asked for relief by status quo (keeping things the way they have been.)  He gave examples of the how just the stress placed on the PennDOT system to try to provide all those new ID’s makes the law unfeasible.

Justice McCaffery’s questions placed emphasis on the cost/benefit question: if there no fraud present, why should the State hurriedly put the law in place when some voters will be left out?  He brushed aside the question of how many would be affected, stating that whether it is 90,000, 9000, or 900, no registered voter should be blocked from voting for lack of a government-issued photo-ID.  He provided the sobering observation that his own PA Supreme Court identification card, "signed by Chief Justice Castille," would not suffice as ID at the polls under this law, because it has no expiration date. 

Justice Todd’s questions brought out her concerns about the law crossing legal boundaries.  By going beyond simply asking the voter to establish identity, to requiring such specific forms of ID, the law adds an “additional qualification to vote,” a violation of federal election law.  When challenged on that point by another Justice, Todd held firm, explaining that an elections board can impose qualifications to register, but not to vote.  Justice Todd acknowledged that the SSC should show deference to the state legislature.  But she questioned at what point that deference should be outweighed by concerns about the real feasibility of implementation.  Todd asked several versions of one sticking question: “what’s the rush?”  She asked hypothetically, "what if they'd said, put it in place in one week?”  The Justice raised the possibility of stretching out implementation time to perhaps two years, or even two federal election cycles (four years).  She grilled Knorr on the stipulations the State had been willing to make in July on the lack of any identifiable fraud in Pennsylvania. 

Knorr insisted that stipulating that no cases had been identified did not mean there were none, and in a less-than-constructive contribution, Chief Justice Castille observed that "there has been fraud since George Washington."  (That observation may stir protective feelings about the ballot, but it is so vague a reference it could apply to anything from ballot stuffing to buying votes.  Individual voter impersonation would have had no more chance of actually impacting an election back then than does now.) 

Justice Baer came across as especially concerned about the question of what this Court’s standard of review of the lower court decision should be.  He may be leaning towards doing nothing, which would mean letting the law stand.  He expressed confidence in the implementation of the law, noting that he had been “reading in the paper every day about (the Department of State’s) efforts to put ID's in people's hands."  Baer questioned the SSC's right to "tell the Commonwealth how to do their job."  He stressed their right to substantially regulate functions of government so that they operate in "fair, effective, and orderly" fashion.

Justice Saylor gave support several times to a concept stressed by attorneys Knorr and Putnam: no law can ever be implemented 100%, so we just have to do our best and hope most people can vote.  He used some of the popular language of voter ID movements across the country, citing concerns about "public confidence in the system".  He mused that “if we were to tinker" with the implementation process we could make it better, but no system is perfect.   

Justice Eakin asked very few questions. 


Issues to Consider

It’s hard to tell if a majority of the Court will deem the stakes here high enough here to justify their intervention.  The questions and comments of Castille, Baer and Saylor don’t indicate that they put much stock in the growing number of stories that bring into focus the plight of some voters.  Even once engaged in the process of seeking the approved forms of ID, some have faced difficulties, and at the time of this trial on Thursday, there was plenty of anecdotal evidence available about snags in the process leaving voters in limbo.  Additionally many are just now learning about, or trying to understand and meet, the new expectations.  There will undoubtedly be numerous voters who find out about the new law the day the walk in to the polls, too late to cast their ballot. 

But because each of the nine plaintiffs in the original case has since been awarded with photo ID’s, Knorr audaciously stated that the plaintiff’s council had “not been able to produce one single person who has not been able to obtain photo ID.”  It is hard to say whether the Justices listening can or will examine the veracity of that remark. 

But the fact is, many thousands of voters in Pennsylvania are counting on these six people to recognize that the burden of this law on the electorate is enough to justify the proactive step of blocking its implementation.  It would be easier to trust them to get this right if they appeared less skeptical about emerging evidence of the risk that legitimate voters will be barred from voting, and more skeptical about the threat of the phantom voter impersonator. 

It was disturbing to note that Knorr and Putnam at least appeared to have an impact on some of the Justices with their “common sense” rhetoric about the idea that “most” voters will get to vote in November.  Indeed, several of the Justices seemed – based on their own phrasing - very comfortable with the idea that if by and large, the main number of folks can get the ID they need in time to vote, well that’s the best we can hope for, and that’s good enough.  Sure, Knorr answered to one of Justice Todd’s questions, if we had another year to implement the law we could do better.  “If we had ten years, “ he added, “we could do even better.” 

Saylor asked if there was any legal directive that could ever be completely complied with. 

Perhaps Justices Todd and McCaffery can remind the rest of the Court that it is not “most people” that usually must turn to the court for redress, and that it’s their very job to decide how close a particular law must come to full implementation in order to remain law. 

What’s Next

The court is expected to make a decision by the end of September.  It’s possible that there are four or more Justices who will agree to impose a longer timeline on implementation of the law.  They’ll have to prevail over those who want to defer to a duly-elected legislature and Governor who have said, "Do it now."

If the Court does uphold the law, its opponents can still look for relief from the federal Department of Justice, who has requested information from the PA DOS in order to evaluate whether the law is in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. 

Barring that, volunteers with the Pennsylvania Voter ID Coalition and other groups will continue their daily efforts across the state.  They are racing against the clock to inform and assist registered voters to get the ID they need in time for Election Day. 

See my series on Voter ID laws.

The Youth Vote?  Pennsylvania GOP Isn't Interested. 

Republican Legislators, State Department officials, and Governor Tom Corbett worked together energetically this year to make it much harder for college students in Pennsylvania to vote in November.  Perhaps they are aware of the high turnout of Obama voters among young people that took place in 2008.  But the obstacles they have strewn in the way of young voters in their state this year may turn out to be ill-advised. 

As is often the case when young adults are told to step aside from their rightful place in society, this may tick off enough students that they will turn out in numbers beyond even what was seen in 2008.  If so, the Pennsylvania GOP will be soon be second-guessing their own tactics. 

But regardless of the outcome this November, it's hard to figure how the Republican Party ever expects to woo young voters, who they must realize are going to be crucial to the long-term vitality of their party.  Using more restrictive Voter ID laws in ways that impact students is an immediate risk, and a long-range blunder.

Political analysts observed great changes in partisanship among young people in the US after disenchantment with the Democratic Party during the Johnson years.  College campuses saw the growth of Young Republicans and later, thriving Neo-Con societies.  Students as a group today would probably best be described today as post-partisan.  Their vote went overwhelmingly in favor of Obama in 2008, but they don't tend to describe themselves as stalwart Democrats.  Young people interested in politics today are more independent than any group of voters in the country's history.

But hey, with enough effort, a whole Party certainly could alienate young voters.  By taking a position hostile to free exercise of the ballot for students, Republicans could lose the trust of young voters for another generation.

How the New Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Makes it Harder for Students to Vote

The Pennsylvania Legislature passed a Voter ID law in March, significantly tightening requirements.  The new guidelines only allow for a handful of acceptable, government-issued photo ID types.   The list does include student ID's, but with restrictions that have a negative impact on the vast majority of college students registered to vote in PA. 

The new law requires that in order for a student ID to be accepted at the polls in November, the card must display the name and photograph of the student, and an expiration date.  It's the last part that makes most of the student ID's in Pennsylvania non-compliant with the new law.  It isn't clear what - if any - research was done by legislators writing the bill, but advocacy organizations quickly discovered that of the 110 accredited colleges, universities, and technical schools in Pennsylvania, 91 do not have ID cards that bear an expiration date, making them unacceptable at the polls.

Are Solutions in the Works?
Many colleges and Universities whose student ID cards do not comply with the new requirements are scrambling to help their students get what they need in time to vote. 

Some schools are producing and issuing stickers with expiration dates that can be affixed to existing cards.  Some schools are producing and issuing all-new cards that include an expiration date. 

Some schools, however, don't currently have plans in place to ensure that their students will have the ID they need in time to vote in this election.  Voting advocates are still urging those schools to provide students without compliant ID to take action in time for election day, or at the very least work to apprise their students of the situation. 

Unfortunately, schools were not consulted in the implementation of law, or even officially informed of the changes.  Any actions these learning institutions are taking now to help their students adapt to the changes in time to vote are voluntary.

What Other Options Do Students Have?
Students that have a current PennDOT driver's license or non-driver's ID can use that to vote.  For students from out of state, the situation is grim.  In order to obtain a PennDOT ID, the student must surrender their out-of-state ID.  They then have the same rigid requirements for original documents that native Pennsylvanians without ID are finding it hard to meet.    

For more information, and help getting ID in Pennsylvania, visit www.seventy.org.

The average middle-class voter can be forgiven for not getting why election-year changes in voting laws are such a big deal.  The average middle-class voter can take time off work for appointments.  She uses a driver's license frequently to cash checks, drink, fly,
or rent a car.  This voter probably has a passport, or keeps a folder of vital records in a home filing cabinet.  He can quickly locate a current mortgage, lease, or bank statement.  This voter can read, speak English, and plug-in to current events through TV and internet.  She is able to find support when coping with her own or a loved-one's disability.  This voter can get around town.  He uses a phone daily, and has the ordinary skills needed to navigate the maze of mainstream American life. 

Those who live squarely within societal infrastructure may puzzle at the outcry over every decision made by officials in various states regarding when and how its citizens vote.  If these changes in law don't affect you, or the people around you, it's hard to fathom the critical impact they can have on those with more tenuous connections.  Don't these changes simply ask for a reasonable adjustment on the part of the voter?  Will cutting back on early-voting hours really take such a toll?  Does a change in the rules for identification procedures really make voting suddenly forbidding for some?  For the greater number of voters, these concerns might seem like a stretch.

But while the casual observer can be excused for not immediately anticipating the severity of hardship placed on some voters by voting law changes, government officials cannot be extended the same allowances.  It is a fair expectation of elected officials that they take responsibility for ensuring equal access to the ballot for all of their constituents.  It is up to those who serve the public to guarantee that its members not encounter unnecessary barriers to a right as fundamental as voting.  Public officials have extraordinary access to the fundamental systems of democracy, and thus an extraordinary obligation to justify any actions taken that may have an impact on voter participation.

The first duty of those who officiate elections is to ensure that no voter encounters an unfair obstacle to casting a vote.  Procedural changes, especially those that potentially increase barriers, should never be made without clear and compelling evidence that they are necessary.  If an accelerated pace is proposed, the evidence should indicate some  urgency.  Otherwise, even when new procedures are indicated, they should be phased in with community input, assessment of impact on turnout, and consultations with other states to gather best practices for success. 

If officials want to decrease voting hours, they need to to explain what was wrong with the hours they had.  If officials want to tighten ID requirements, they need to say why the previous procedures for identification weren't working.  If officials want to make fast-paced, wholesale decisions about the integrity of their voter rolls, they'd better explain why their list of eligible voters wasn't better maintained between elections.

Without accusing officials of partisan motivations, we can still place the onus on them for justifying policy decisions that threaten access to the ballot for eligible voters.  In the absence of any credible rationale, and without an abundance of level-headed preparation, no changes in election law should ever be made in an election year.

A PennDOT driver's license or non-driver's ID  will be required to vote in presidential election this November 6th.  Along with a handful of other types of government-issued photo ID, (see below), a PennDOT ID must be presented at the polling place in order to receive a ballot, according to a new law effective this Election Day. 

As an alternative, registered voters having difficulty obtaining a PennDOT ID have been offered a newly-created Voter ID, developed by the Department of State and issued through PennDOT Driver's License Centers.  But the new Voter ID is proving no easier to obtain.

The PennDOT non-driver's ID is not easy to get if you are not in immediate possession of the four types of documentation, including original birth records, required for an application. It places particular hardship on elderly voters who can't locate a raised-seal birth certificate; students registered to vote in PA who carry an out-of-state driver's license; and voters with physical disabilities, those who work long or inflexible work hours, or who have young children in tow: in most cases these voters are finding that getting a PennDOT ID is requiring more than one trip to the PennDOT DL Center.

In response to complaints, and pressure from voter's advocacy groups, last week the Department of State finally released their anticipated "safety net" Voter ID, reassuring the public that this new Voter ID will ensure that no registered, eligible voter is turned away from the polls.  But even leaving aside the voters that will not have heard about the strict new requirements until they walk into their precinct's polling place, where they have voted under the same procedures as long as they have been voting, those who are getting the word in time are discovering that by design, the so-called streamlined ID is no easier to get than the PennDOT ID.  That's because the State wants you to take the long way around, applying for the PennDOT ID first.

Officials at PennDOT, working with the Department of State, have declared the PennDOT ID, although harder to obtain, "a better product" than the Voter ID, because "it can be used for multiple purposes," whereas the Voter ID can only be used for, well, voting.

So voters, anxious to meet the new ID requirements in time to be heard in this national election; voters who by definition don't drive and have apparently not been in urgent need of current, official, government-issued photo identification; voters who don't drive, fly, purchase alcohol, or rent cars; voters who just want to vote, are being told that while the PennDOT ID is not easy to obtain, if, for example, they don't have "the birth certificate with a raised seal (and) will need to visit a driver license center twice," the extra steps will pay off, because "they will receive a product that can be used for many day to day identification needs." 

PennDOT, the only agency providing the Voter ID, is therefore requiring every applicant to apply first for a PennDOT ID.  "PennDOT wants to make every effort to issue this product first," as "the Voter ID will be valid for voting purposes only."  If unable to meet the documentation requirements for the PennDOT ID after two trips and signing a written oath that the documents cannot be located, a voter can provide whatever documentation they do have and will be at last issued a Voter ID.

Right now, for voters discovering barriers between themselves and their ballot, the one thing they're looking for is identification "for voting purposes only."

Before March of this year, voters in PA showed identification only when registering, or when voting for the first time in a new precinct.  This identification could include any of the following: a PennDOT driver's license or non-driver ID, a student ID, a work ID, a bank statement, a library card, or a pay stub or utility bill.

Starting November 6th, all voters must present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote.  These include: a PennDOT driver's license or non-driver ID, passport, military ID, government employee ID, student ID (if it displays an expiration date), or a photo ID from a Pennsylvania care facility.

If a registered voter does not have a current form of one of the ID's listed above, their first recourse is to go to a PennDOT DL Center to apply for a PennDOT non-driver's ID.  They'll need a raised-seal copy of their birth certificate, an original copy of their Social Security card, and two proofs of residence, such as a lease and a current utility bill.

If a voter does not possess a raised-seal copy of their birth certificate, they'll need to go to a PennDOT DL Center and do the following: 

• sign an oath saying they do not have an official birth certificate
• fill out an application for a "Certification of a Birth Record for Voter ID Purposes Only"
• show their Social Security card and 2 proofs of residence
• fill out an application for a PennDOT non-driver's photo ID

The voter must then wait up to ten days for letter from the Health Department and return to the PennDOT DL Center with the letter.  If the letter verifies the birth records, the voter can get a PennDOT ID on this second trip.

Setbacks Encountered
Some voters - especially among the elderly - have received letters from the health department stating their birth records can not be located.  Other voters, born in another state or country, can't locate birth records or have to pay a fee.  Students voters have learned that their student ID cards must bear an expiration date to be considered suitable.  If their school's card does not, and their driver's license is from out-of-state, they can apply for a PennDOT ID, but they must first relinquish their out-of-state ID, sign a written oath that they don't have other acceptable ID, and through the same documentation procedures AS it gets closer to election day, there will be voters who don't find out about the new requirement in time to allow for two trips to a PennDOT center and a ten day wait on documents. 

In comes the the newly-minted DOS Voter ID card.  While the setbacks above were quickly discovered, the PA Department of State has been slow to respond.  As early as April, voters trying to obtain ID hit barriers.  Finally in late August, the DOS released the Voter ID card.  Described as a "safety net" option for those encountering obstacles to getting documentation, State officials have said that "the process has been streamlined and the requirements are less stringent to obtain (it)."  Now racing to inform all registered PA voters of the new requirements and how to meet them, voter advocates look to the Voter ID as extra insurance that every voter will be able to walk into their polling place holding an acceptable form of ID.  As of now though, since the Voter ID will not be provided unless and until all the avenues to getting a PennDOT ID have been exhausted, advocates fear it is the voters who will become exhausted. 

Voter groups plan to continue to push for procedures that will ensure every registered voter can vote November 6th.

Of course, it comes by way of a federal court.  The DC Circuit Federal Court of Appeals struck down the Texas Voter ID law today. 

The law was one of the strictest propositions this country has seen in recent efforts to tighten ID requirements. The State of Texas was not prepared to offset fees certified documents needed to get the new ID.  They offered no plan to mitigate the burdens faced by voters who would have to travel long distances to agencies providing the documents and ID's.

This lack of support, for registered voters forced to scramble to meet new ID requirements by November 6, was the downfall of the law.  The court found that Texas did not begin to meet its burden - per The Voting rights Act - to prove the new requirements would not prevent minority voters from casting their ballot.  It was the possibility of incurred costs that set the Texas law apart from the Pennsylvania law that is also in court. 

Opponents of the Pennsylvania ID may face a tougher challenge in court than Texas; the PA Dept. of State has provided for free birth certificates for those who need them.  But the roll-out in Pennsylvania is already underway, and voters have encountered one problem after another trying to get ID's.  Hopefully the weight of so many real-life examples of the barriers created will make the PA law unacceptable to the courts.

The other Voter ID law that is presently in court is the one in South Carolina.  I don't have as much information about that one yet, but I understand it is less strict than the Texas law, so it may survive trial.  More on that tomorrow.

Click here to read the Texas decision from today.

This is a status update on the situation unfolding in Pennsylvania regarding new voter ID requirements.  ID requirements there have been tightened to the strictest standards, effective on election day this November 6th.

The Pennsylvania Department of State announced this week it will provide a free "safety net" photo-ID card, for registered voters who are unable to obtain an official PennDOT photo ID. 

The nation watching may be excused for thinking this will enable many of the hundreds of thousands of voters without ID to vote in this election.  In fact, shortcomings in the system continue to create barriers, and it is still very possible that many registered voters will not be able to participate in this year's election. 

The safety net ID is intended to be a last recourse only, and a person seeking this ID must first take steps to obtain a regular PennDOT photo ID. 

To obtain a PennDOT ID, a registered voter must appear in person at a driver's license center and present a raised-seal birth certificate, a Social Security card, and two forms of proof of residence, such as a lease and a current utility bill. 

If the registered voter is not in possession of a raised-seal copy of the birth certificate, these steps must be taken:

• go in person to a PennDOT driver's license center; present a Social Security card and two proofs of residence
• sign an affirmation stating you do not have a birth certificate
• fill out a form requesting a non-driver's PennDOT ID
• fill out a form requesting certification of birth record
• return home and wait up to ten days for a letter from the health department
• return to the letter PennDOT driver's license center
• if the health department letter certifies your birth, you can get your PennDOT ID
• If the health department letter indicates the health department is unable to verify birth, then you can get a "safety net" ID.

Ellen Kaplan, Vice President and Policy Director at the Committee of Seventy, a non-partisan Philadelphia organization that works for fair elections, submitted inquiries to the Department of State as to whether there was a way a voter could obtain the safety net ID in one visit.  Answers were unclear, and even implied that this might depend depend on the judgement of the DOT employee the voter encounters the day of their visit.  Asked if a voter might be able to obtain a same-day ID, a DOS representative responded that voters were encouraged to bring "all the documentation they have with them," and the PennDOT clerk "will determine if the registered voter has all the necessary documentation" for the regular non-driver's PennDOT photo ID.  If the PennDOT clerk "determines that the customer does not have all the necessary documentation" and can't get it, the clerk will "begin the process of issuing" the safety net ID.  "Assuming the customer meets the requirements, a (safety net ID) will be issued and the customer will leave with the ID card."

This ID is intended to be a last resort "save" so that no registered voter will be blocked from voting this November.  But it can only act as a save if a registered voter without government-issued photo ID learns about the new requirements before election day and has enough time to obtain one.  It will only work if the voter understands this set of requirements for getting the ID, and has access to a driver's license center during business hours.  Rural voters, elderly voters, voters without transportation or time off work will be even less able to obtain ID.

If the new requirements prevented a single registered voter from casting a ballot in a presidential election, it would be an egregious injustice.  Unfortunately, even with wide disparities in estimates for how many voters will be affected, no one disputes that there are hundreds of thousands of registered Pennsylvania voters who do not possess government issued photo ID.  Also undisputed is the fact that this law disproportionately impacts minority voters. 

By virtue of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the law should be illegal. 

"No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."

What if proponents of the strict new voter ID laws sweeping across the country had simply said, “Look, states need to require some sort of easy to obtain form of voter ID”?  What if they had said, for example, “Voters need to bring in their voter registration card every time they vote”?  Would anyone have had a problem with that?

Some states have always allowed voters to just show up, sign in and vote.  But what if Republicans pushing voter ID laws had simply asked for such states to start using a voter registration card?  Would there really have been much of a complaint by us self-appointed watchdogs of constitutional rights?  There's no missing your voter registration card - it comes in the mail a couple of weeks after you register.  For those who may have lost theirs years ago, reissuing new copies would cost a fraction of the implementation of the new laws.  I don’t see why we couldn’t have gone along with that_

What if all states started asking voters to check in at the polls with one of the various forms of ID used by many states now – forms that include just about any sort of paperwork that says hey, I really am Julie Boler, and I'm fixing to vote.  Voters can use bills or medical records, a pay stub or work ID, a Medicaid card, a debit card; basically any document or ID card that shows your name. To have to start doing that now when they didn’t before, that would be part of life for most people – not even cause a ripple.Instead, the states that don’t require anything are enacting new requirements, the more flexible states are scrambling to switch up to more demanding requirements, and the already strict states are outdoing themselves in the narrow list of acceptable forms.

Why?

The strict states, which may ultimately set the tone for the rest of the country if they pass the Constitutionality tests, require the kind of ID that asks you to jump through hoops to acquire.  You'll need time off work, sometimes more than one day to get to more than one agency, and have to deal with transportation, fees, and that eternal catch-22 of needing documentation to get the documentation you need at various places.  You may have a long wait at each stop.  If you live in a rural area, are elderly or sick, care for a family member or have small children in tow, or have trouble getting access to transportation, you are going to have a tough time getting what you need before you even get to the state agency that issues photo ID’s.   And if you haven't had to gather vital records for a state-issued ID since 9/11, you may not know that they have consciously added some hoops to the process in some areas.  These steps must be taken – under these new laws, before you can exercise your constitutional right to vote.

What if proponents of the new laws had been able to offer ANY compelling evidence of a need for the new laws, perhaps at least making the hoop-jumping feel warranted.  (They have done the opposite, demanding evidence for why we shouldn’t have these laws…)

What if they hadn't tried to convince people that there is any kind of voter fraud that can be prevented with a strictly-defined, official form of state-issued photo ID, that can't also be prevented by presenting a Medicaid card or pay stub?  What if they didn’t attempt to blur the lines between different types of election fraud so that people would think that an ID card could stop a corrupt precinct captain from duplicating ballots after the polls had closed?   What if they hadn't purposely confused real threats to a secure ballot, like absentee voter fraud, and corrupt election officials, with the nonexistent risk of an election being thrown by random, isolated irregularities?

Maybe there would be more trust now.

What if these zealots had forthrightly acknowledged their responsibility under federal law not to place an obstacle in the path of any voter making their way to the polls?

What if they hadn't been so gleeful about their ability to kick start this legislation in some states so quickly that if it survives legal challenges it will just happen to be in place by the 2012 elections?  Or if they had at least justified this urgency with evidence of a problem needing to be solved?

What if they had allowed the horse to walk calmly ahead of the cart; addressing issues of access first.  What if they had studied the impact the laws would have to ensure they were in compliance with the Voting Rights Act.  What if they’d been proactive (beyond saying, “Hey, we’ll make these cards free!”) in evaluating state government systems, so that they would be in compliance BEFORE the new law.  We certainly couldn’t have wondered “why the rush” if there was no rush!

What if they hadn't sent out one red herring after another:

• Well, you need ID to buy beer or rent a car!" comparing access to consumer goods and services to access to your constitutional right to vote.
•  "Even homeless people have to carry ID to get benefits," calling forth a parallel hardship as though it is a justification for a similar hardship
• "What is the big deal about this?  Why does it matter so much?  Why are you going on about it?"  To be clear, this is a group of people moving a freight train across the country, apparently hell bent on getting new voter ID laws in place in time to effect 2012 elections, asking those on the sidelines questioning the process and hoping to slow it down, why they are making such a big deal about this.
  
• “Come on, are there really that many people this would affect?” Research from a variety of sources averages out to an estimate that over 20 million – about 11% - of voting age Americans do not possess the official state-issued photo ID required in a rapidly growing number of states.

What if Republicans had minded all these p's and q's, approached this with realism and integrity, and basically asked if voters couldn't just start using their voter registration cards consistently? 

We probably wouldn't have batted an eye.

We jaded lefties probably wouldn't have been so suspicious about motives. We might have said, "okay, fair enough, but let's just make sure everyone hears about the new change in time to vote, and that they remember to bring their card with them, and by the way, do you need a ride to the polls?”   If the voter ID supporters really felt this was an issue, they could have approached it in good faith, engendered trust, and we could all have found a way to make everyone happy.

Instead, conservative Republican office-holders, candidates, and advocacy groups have churned across the country enacting the strictest voter identification laws ever seen in this country since poll taxes and literacy tests. 

If they hadn't, we might not have felt the need to respond.  We might not have felt the need to rouse some folks, like the Justice Department, the ACLU, the National Democratic Party, the NAACP, the AARP, the League of Women Voters, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Progressive States Network, the Fair Elections Legal Network, Project Vote, and.... 

Well it turns out there are a whole bunch of people not happy about these laws. Regardless of the outcome in the courts, I hope that those who first started pushing them meant it when they said that all they want is for as many eligible voters as possible to come out and vote, fair and square; because that's what they can expect in 2012.

Conservatives are clamoring for rigid voter ID laws.  State by state, they are proudly shepherding in strict procedures that require voters to prove their identity at the polls by producing specific, narrowly-defined forms of government-issued photo identification. Nothing in a democracy is more important than a secure ballot. But real election fraud involves coordinated tactics like falsifying absentee ballots, casting ballots for deceased voters, buying votes, counterfeiting registrations, and duplicating votes.  Widespread irregularities like these can only be prevented by comprehensive protections maintained with the vigilance of honest officials, technical security measures, and oversight by governing bodies, including the FBI and the Justice Department.  Conservative politicians will tell you that the laws don’t impose a hardship.  They will tell you they are needed to prevent election fraud. 

When you hear these specious claims, keep the facts in mind:

• There is no evidence of the type of fraud that would be prevented with stricter voter ID.  Election results are threatened by organized schemes to subvert them, not random cases of one voter impersonating another.
• If the goal is to protect against chance irregularities, less restrictive requirements used by some states would suffice.  These allow voters to establish identity with voter registration cards, medical cards, bank cards, recent utility bills, or pay stubs.
• Requiring strict, government-issued photo ID, presents a hardship for hundreds of thousands of voters. 
  

In order to be issued an official government photo ID, multiple documents must be obtained from a variety of agencies.  These may include original birth certificates, Social Security cards, school records, tax records, or property records.  Some combination of these must be presented in person by the voter just to secure the qualifying ID.  These documents are maintained at different agencies, most of which are only open weekdays and often require long waits.

It can take several trips to gather this documentation, making it hard for working class voters to get the time off work.  It may be hard for rural or low-income voters to arrange transportation.  Elderly, sick, and disabled voters may have difficulty.  Proponents will point out that the new laws have provisions to make these IDs easier to obtain, but this is coming from the same people who seem to have no sense of what kind of hardship these laws impose. 

It can be done.  And make no mistake, if these laws survive legal challenges, caring citizens will mobilize in response and help those who don’t have them get the forms of ID they need.  But they shouldn’t have to.  These laws affect people who in some cases have been dedicated voters for many years, and have always known that to cast their ballot they just had to get themselves to the polls on Election Day.  Some of them know their precinct workers on sight.  Some of them remember when people took their lives in their hands to try and vote, and now we are saying to them, you have to get some documentation before you come in here and try to vote.  They have been described by some as not wanting to go to the trouble to obtain the proper ID. 

Here is where things stand now:
 
20 states* and DC currently require no ID to vote.  Voters provide their name and address and are given a ballot.

16 states* allow these forms of ID: voter registration card, utility bill, student ID, work badge, Social Security card, pay stub, medical card, public assistance card, birth certificate, tribal ID, military ID, driver's license or state ID card.

(That's 36 states that require either easily accessible forms of ID, or none.  Where are the cases of elections skewed by individuals impersonating other voters?  When have impersonators used utility bills to fool poll workers, and would have been thwarted if only they’d had to present a photo ID?)

7 states * require a photo ID, but will accept the following alternatives to government issued forms:  debit or credit card with photo, retirement center photo ID, student ID, public assistance photo ID, neighborhood association ID, out-of-state driver's license, and in some states, any photo ID, such as a gym membership card, or a discount warehouse card.

(Where are the cases in which poll workers were fooled by picture IDs that weren’t state-issued?)

7 states* have laws that are in effect now or will be soon that are the most restrictive.  The only acceptable form of ID in these states are a driver’s license, state identification card, passport, or military ID, forms that can only be obtained by jumping through the hoops outlined above.

Justifying a new law is the responsibility of its proponents.  Do not let them tell you it is the responsibility of the law's opponents to prove them unnecessary and problematic. It is against federal law to impose procedures that have the result - even if not the intent - of disenfranchising numbers of voters.  Their argument for the existence of these laws must be made to the Department of Justice.  Meanwhile, don't be snowed.  Remember the facts when you hear the claims.

7 states and counting.  It’s the hottest new fad in conservative sleight of hand, coming soon to a state near you.  These politicians should run on the merits of their positions rather than making up problems that trade on fear.

*National Conference of State Legislature

Why should someone mind bringing ID with them to vote?  This is a no-brainer.  Cries of voter suppression are an over-reaction.  It can't be that hard to get an ID.  If you're motivated enough to figure out when and where to vote, can you really not find out where to go for a state-issued photo ID, and get a ride or something? 

States all over the country are enacting laws requiring citizens to have specific, qualifying forms of identification in order to exercise their right to vote.  And why not?  It's "one person, one vote" in this country.  Voter fraud is a scary prospect.  What is more important than the integrity of the ballot?  Some are whining that this practice would add barriers to the voting process. They say the laws are motivated by a desire for low turn out among those who would have difficulty acquiring a photo ID.   These complainers need to offer evidence that it would really create a hardship.  Requiring ID is the simplest way to ensure people aren't skewing election results with illegal activities.

Right?

Actually, wrong.  The onus is on those pushing for these laws to provide substantive rationale for making a change in voting procedures.  If it is worth the time to write these bills and get them passed, there must be a reason we need them.  It's important to look carefully at any practice that adds another step between the voter and the ballot.  So why now?  What's changed that makes this an important new procedure?  What is the problem exactly?

Are wide swaths of voters are impersonating other voters in an attempt to sway elections?  Are narrow swaths of voters doing this?  Are any voters doing it?  Where is the fraud this is addressing?

What processes have been used to select this as the best solution?  Are evaluation tools in place to measure the increase in ballot security that this seeks to provide?  Have citizens been given a chance for input on implementation?  Why are some states passing these laws still not requiring voters to provide identification when registering to vote?  In North Carolina, after turning in the proper paper work, newly registered voters receive a voter registration card in the mail.  Under the Voter ID law proposed here, presenting this card would not get you a ballot.  Why are these two processes treated differently?

To be fair though, it's hard to generate workable solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.