|
By Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq.
October 25, 2006
What easier way to curtail voter fraud than by requiring adequate voter identification?
Perhaps you have served at a polling place on a primary or general election day as a judge, registrar, clerk or whatever the title (which varies State by State) may be; perhaps you have served a political party or a candidate by distributing literature outside a polling place. Maybe you only have voted. Likely, whatever your role or roles, if you are reading this column you have performed any such role in a reasonably literate, reasonably settled ward, precinct or other voting boundary.
In most, if perhaps not literally all, such jurisdictions the following characteristics, if surely not universal, overwhelmingly predominate: Most voters have an official voter identification card, a driver’s license with photograph, a passport and/or a major credit card with photograph - often all four; many voters personally are recognized by one or more functionaries within the voting room or rooms; voters do not arrive in large herded groups but individually, as part of a family or with neighbors. In short, very few voters appear suspicious.
Contrast that phenomenon with many wards, precincts or other voting places. There is a difference. These voting places almost invariably are in heavily populated communities. The area they serve usually has a smaller, often very small, percentage of homeowners or reasonably permanent residents, whether renters or homeowners; a high percentage of lower or relatively lower incomes - and in many parts of the country a large group of immigrants and/or minorities.
Every such person, provided that person is a citizen qualified pursuant to the laws of the State in which he or she seeks to vote, equally is entitled to the privilege of voting. Equally important, each such person is entitled to assurance within the bounds of practicality that persons not qualified are not permitted to vote.
The Supreme Court of the United States last week sustained a voter-identification requirement. Purcell v Maricopa County [Metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona] Recorder et al v Gonzalez and Arizona et al v Gonzalez et al. All nine Justices voted the same way. Justice John Paul Stevens filed a Concurring Opinion, simply meaning his reasoning differed, same result. In so doing, the Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has the dubious distinction as the Circuit with the most litigation and with the highest percentage of Supreme Court reversals. In the words of the Supreme Court:
“In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200. The measure sought to combat voter fraud by requiring voters to present proof of citizenship when they register to vote and to present identification when they vote on election day.
The election procedures implemented to effect Proposition 200 do not necessarily result in the turning away of qualified, registered voters by election officials for lack of proper identification. A voter who arrives at the polls on election day without identification may cast a conditional provisional ballot. For that ballot to be counted, the voter is allowed five business days to return to a designated site and present proper identification. In addition [,] any voter who knows he or she cannot secure identification within five business days has the option to vote during the early voting period [which, unlike most States, allows voting in advance of election day]. The State has determined that, because there is adequate time during the early voting period to compare the voters’ signatures on the ballot with their signatures on the registration rolls, voters need not present identification if voting early.”
Many, including this writer, would say the Arizona law is overly generous. Surely if a citizen cannot prove by easily accessible and common documentation that he is the citizen and resident he purports to be his interest in the democratic process is deficient and at best he is suspect. Every State should issue, upon reasonable proof including photographs, a voter identification card, with photograph. A voter identification card, with photograph, if acquired upon due proof, should suffice. We can defer the details for another occasion. The point is that the Arizona statute, and similarly intended laws in Georgia and Missouri struck down in litigation, should govern voting everywhere.
Voter fraud, much of it documented, some the butt of jokes, has not been uncommon in American history. History and jokes aside, with a highly transient population, an estimated 12 million unlawful immigrants and some 300 million people disproportionately living in large metropolitan areas, the need for lawfulness in voting is more dramatic than ever. Nothing beats, or even equals, genuine documentation with photograph.
Lest we get too optimistic about precedent in the foregoing Supreme Court ruling, we need note that, attempting to be both fair and pragmatic, the Supreme Court did not sustain the constitutionality of the Arizona statute but merely set aside an injunction against it which would have been blocked its use, upon very short notice, with respect to the November 7, 2006 elections.
Every State legislature, and more particularly those with considerable voter fraud, should consider requiring meaningful proof of citizenship and residence of everyone seeking to register to vote or seeking to vote. Assuming a document otherwise sound, nothing further enhances its validity than a photograph.
Congress could address the problem as to Federal elections. Several Members - for example, Senator A. Mitchell (Mitch) McConnell, Jr. (R-KY), have endeavored to do so. In addition, the prestigious and bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform - known as the Carter - Baker Commission (after the Democratic President and the Republican Secretary of State) has made similar recommendations. For what it may be worth, an April 2006 NBC NEWS/WALL STREET JOURNAL poll reported that 62% strongly favor photographic ID at the polls, 19% mildly favor it, 12% are neutral, 3% mildly oppose, 4% strongly oppose. One produces one’s photograph to rent a video, cash a check or do other things less important to our national welfare than casting a vote. The requirement isn’t novel. As a strong federalist, this writer believes State legislatures should act. Further, as a practical matter, considering the 109th Congress did not enact a statute, it is all but certain the 110th, more liberal whichever party gains the majorities on November 7, would not do so.
Marion Edwyn Harrison is President of, and Counsel to, the Free Congress Foundation.
|
