September 27, 2007

Identity Crisis

Hatched by Dafydd

This term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case turning on whether it's constitutional to demand that voters present a picture ID card before voting:

With the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections on the horizon, the Supreme Court agreed today to consider whether voter-identification laws unfairly keep poor people and members of minority groups from going to the polls.

The justices will hear arguments from an Indiana case, in which a federal district judge and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in January upheld a state law requiring, with certain exceptions, that someone wanting to vote in person in a primary or general election present a government-issued photo identification. Presumably, the court would rule on the case by June.

Before the law was enacted in 2005, an Indiana voter was required only to sign a book at the polling place, where a photocopy of the voter’s signature was kept on file.

This issue fascinates me because it touches on a critical philosophical difference: Is it unconstitutional to require voters to undertake a series of steps before they can exercise the franchise, merely because the people most likely to be too lazy to undertake them also tend to vote for one major party more than the other? For that is the real issue here:

Writing for the majority, Judge [Richard A.] Posner acknowledged that the Indiana law favors one party. “No doubt most people who don’t have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates,” he wrote.

But the purpose of the law is to reduce voting fraud, “and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes — dilution being recognized to be an impairment of the right to vote,” Judge Posner said. And assertions that many people will be disenfranchised, or that there is no significant voter-fraud problem in Indiana, are based on unreliable data and “may reflect nothing more than the vagaries of journalists’ and other investigators’ choice of scandals to investigate,” the judge held.

In dissent, Judge Evans wrote that the Indiana law imposed an unconstitutional burden on some eligible voters. “Let’s not beat around the bush,” he wrote. “The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic.”

Of course, we already require such steps: Registering, for example -- though many activists now demand that this requirement too be done away with, allowing into the ballot booth anyone who shows up with the ability to sign his name (or someone's). But it's hard to believe that the Court would strike down an election law that includes the mere requirement that you pre-register. But that means they (and most people) accept in theory the strategy of requiring a certain degree of hoop-jumping before voting; we're only arguing about how many hoops and how high they can be mounted.

The judges on the 7th Circus split (surprise!) along partisan fault lines: Posner and Diane S. Sykes, in the majority, were appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, respectively; while the dissenter, Terence T. Evans, was a Bill Clinton appointee. And as the New York Times hastens to point out...

In general, Republicans argue that identification laws reduce voter fraud, while Democrats oppose them on grounds that they lower the turnout among people who tend to vote Democratic.

Yes: convicts, illegal aliens, folks from neighboring states, and people who already voted six times that day. The mainstay of the Democratic electorate, without whom they would be a minority party today.

I confess I have little sympathy -- well, none, actually -- for the Democratic argument: If your party is going to derive at least some of its support by pandering to the scum of the earth, then you've no right to kick and scream when the scum fails to climb out of the gutter and vote.

The Times piece seems to be fairly even-handed, so let's turn to the real issue. Democrats argue that anything that makes it more difficult to vote will necessarily reduce voter turnout; in addition, it will reduce it more among the "poor," who tend to vote more Democratic; therefore (Democrats conclude) the law is unconstitutional.

But this argument is disingenuous, because it quietly assumes that the reason fewer poor people vote is that their grinding poverty physically prevents them from doing so: They cannot get to the polls because they have no cars, or because their Simon Legree-like bosses won't allow them to leave, or because the Gaza-like hellholes where they live contain death squads that will shoot them if they try to vote.

But this is nonsense on stilts. Nothing stops the poor from voting; most live within walking distance of their polling places; they can vote in the evening; we have no poll taxes anymore; and I have never heard of gang-bangers in the Bronx or East L.A. warning residents not to vote on penalty of a drive-by.

In fact, I am utterly convinced that older, married poor people have a significantly better voting turnout than teenaged and early-twenties middle- and upper-middle-income unmarried kids, simply because the latter group has an appalling record of not voting, no matter what their income. (Which I think is actually good, because the fewer people who vote, the better: I prefer that only those who really care about the issues vote, which disincludes that lot.)

"The poor" is an inadequate term, because there are really two classes of poor: A minority of the poor worked hard all their lives; but through a series of misfortunes or nasty government policies, they lost much of what they earned and now fall under the poverty line -- widows and orphans, workers whose employer went bankrupt, taking their entire pension with them, and so forth. These used to be called the "deserving poor," meaning they deserved to be helped by the more fortunate.

But then we have the large majority, who are poor precisely because they are lazy slobs, drug addicts, psychotic, or any combination of these. This group is the "undeserving poor."

It is the undeserving poor who skew the voting statistics for "the poor" as a lump: Fewer undeserving poor vote because the same sort of person who is too drunk, crazy, or lazy to work is equally uninterested in voting. In polls, if you ask them, they would certainly be far more Democratic and liberal (even Socialist) than the average population; but it's a canard to say they support the Democratic candidate, because they never remember to get to the polls, or else they think about it but decide to drink another bottle of Thunderbird instead.

If Indiana requires a picture ID to vote, the deserving poor will happily get one, if they don't have one already (which I suspect virtually all of them do). The undeserving poor -- who may very well not have drivers licenses, since that requires taking classes and passing a test -- will use the requirement as another excuse for not voting... and good riddance. That the Democrats want to cater to this group of ne'er-do-wells, brigands, scoundrels, bounders, pimps and ho's, drunks and the wasted, is a contemptible national disgrace.

The alternative view (of, e.g., Judge Evans) is that it's always better when more people vote, no matter whence you dredge up those extra warm bodies. I suspect they would prefer a law that sent poll workers into Skid Row (or as Friend Lee puts it, "Bums R Us") and had them shake awake the passed-out hobos and ask who they want for president. But do we really want people voting who literally don't even know that presidents are elected, let alone who is running and what their platforms say?

I surely hope that the Court takes this golden opportunity to reaffirm that voting is a right -- but one that entails a duty to show at least enough commitment to get some picture ID, so we're sure it's not one of those "mainstays" above whose maxim is "vote early, vote often," or who is voting while on weekend furlough from the Indiana State Prison.

But with Justice Anthony Kennedy, you never know; it could turn into a disaster if he sides with the Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter quadrumvirate.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 27, 2007, at the time of 4:31 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2461

Comments

The following hissed in response by: AMR

My, my, so un-PC, but also so nice to see written out in plain, uncomplicated language; and in English too. I remarked the other day that I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that only those who own property should be able to vote as was the law during colonial days. I quickly looked around to see if I would be challenged for such a cold, uncaring remark. I remember Senator Kennedy’s campaign for President and the women at my employer remarking that they were going to vote for him because he was so cute. Even at 18, I found that ridiculous and ever so carefully told them so. It has gotten worse, not better, in my opinion.

The above hissed in response by: AMR [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 27, 2007 5:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

I think the case will turn on how onerous it is to get the ID, what efforts are made to promulgate the law, and how much time before the election the voters are given to get the ID. Philosophically I'm of the opinion that "I don't need identification, I know who I am" but that's never been the law.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 27, 2007 5:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bostonian

There's another angle that cannot be ignored:

When someone votes illegally, that effectively cancels out the legal vote of someone else.

The act STEALS a vote. It has the same net effect as someone turning a voter away from the polls on a trumped-up nonsense excuse.

Failing to protect the integrity of the system is a failure to protect the citizen's right to vote. I am astonished beyond belief that Democrats ignore this.

The above hissed in response by: Bostonian [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 27, 2007 5:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

I remember Senator Kennedy’s campaign for President and the women at my employer remarking that they were going to vote for him because he was so cute. Even at 18, I found that ridiculous and ever so carefully told them so. It has gotten worse, not better, in my opinion.

I just left a site where we were talking about the divisions between the dems moderates and the radical left. Kennedy was in my comment:

I would submit that there are moderate democrats out there that feel like they have no voice, or they are too frightened to speak out against their lunatic far left radical breatheren for reasons that we just don’t understand. The parallels with the peaceful Muslim sect that is in fear of speaking out against their radical side that professes violence is appalling.

And yes, I thought JFK was bigger that life, but I was only in the sixth grade. Later I learned that Kennedy was the last democratic President to advocate lower taxes, a smaller government and a strong defense. The “what can the government do for me” crowd needs to revisit Kennedy’s signature calling: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

I sure do miss those better/simpler times when there was more pride in the right to vote. But I guess our folks said the same thing.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 27, 2007 8:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

I don't see what would be so onerus about having registration to vote at the DMV issue photo ids for those who don't drive. It grates because I don;t think the fees have to that much but we could subsidize them for low income families to at least get rid of the Demos faux objections.

As for multiple voting? I think we could do worse than emulating the Iraqis. Indelible purple ink LOL it will wear off in time but maybe not soon enough to vote often

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2007 5:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I worked as a "poll challenger" last year, making sure that no one cheated the system (supposedly). As I watched the voting, I noticed that about 80% of voters VOLUNTARILY produced a photo ID, without being asked, and without it being a requirement. ALL of the people who registered same-day (as we unfortunately allow here), produced a valid drivers license as ID. 5 or 6 of them failed to show their valid address on the license, and were sent to the nearby license bureau to get it updated. They did.

That was it. No one was turned away without voting, and this (as I learned later) was a heavily Democrat precinct. I have no doubt that voter fraud occurs in other places, under different rules, and that it heavily favors Democrats when it does, but the notion that a picture ID is an onerous requirement is simply not true. The objection is that it cuts voter fraud, and we all know it.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2007 7:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: kimsch

Don't you need a photo ID to cash a check at the currency exchange or bank? Don't you need a photo ID when you apply for "services?" Don't you need a photo ID to write a check at the grocery store? (Or at least to get the Safeway card that also allows you to write a check without ID?) I seem to remember that a photo ID was necessary to commence my Hollywood Video membership (a credit card too...)

My birthday was in June and I had to renew my driver's license. It cost $10. It's good for 4 years. State ID's don't cost any more than that.

Photo IDs are not onerous, most people probably have one.

The above hissed in response by: kimsch [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2007 7:26 AM

The following hissed in response by: David M

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/28/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The above hissed in response by: David M [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2007 10:21 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I live in Indiana and I think they should have voter ID. But then I live in a small rural town and everyone knows everyone anyway.

However, I do take exception with your remarks about the poor. Some people are poor because hard work does not always pay well and because of illness or some other fact of life.

One thing I do not like: I do not like people judging other people on the basis of their wealth. Keep in mind that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, George Clooney, John Grisham...just to mention a few are rich and I think they are a lot closer to the scum of the earth category than my dear old Grandmother who was poorer than the proverbial church mouse.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2007 1:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Terrye:

However, I do take exception with your remarks about the poor. Some people are poor because hard work does not always pay well and because of illness or some other fact of life.

Terrye, look back up and reread what I wrote: I clearly and unambiguously distinguished between what I called the "deserving poor" (those who deserve help and sympathy) and the "undeserving poor" (those who are poor because they are lazy, crazy, or addicted). Note:

"The poor" is an inadequate term, because there are really two classes of poor: A minority of the poor worked hard all their lives; but through a series of misfortunes or nasty government policies, they lost much of what they earned and now fall under the poverty line -- widows and orphans, workers whose employer went bankrupt, taking their entire pension with them, and so forth. These used to be called the "deserving poor," meaning they deserved to be helped by the more fortunate.

That would also include, e.g., immigrants who worked hard but were never able to earn more than a little above minimum wage. The "scum of the earth" reference was to the undeserving poor -- not the deserving poor, as I thought I made clear.

In any event, you would have to be really, really poor (or a social dropout) not to have even a driver's license, state-issued ID, passport, green card, or other photo ID. Do you know any non scum of the earth poor who have no official photo ID of any kind?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2007 5:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: brutepcm

When you listed the disenfranchised voters, you forgot to include the dead. Why do you discriminate against those who contributed so much in the past, just because they no longer have a voice?
Why don't you just admit that you're a deadist!

The above hissed in response by: brutepcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2007 2:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

What about those who did not have a series of misfortunes nor were screwed by the government? Shocking as it may seem cleaning ladies and nannies and nurses aides do not have to meet with bad government policy or misfortune to be poor, it comes with the territory. The truth is in America there is a bias against the poor, trailer trash, unless they can prove they are noble and pure of heart or something they are looked down on. Race is not as much a factor in social status as is wealth.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2007 3:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

And I made it plain that I do support some sort of ID at polling places. But like I said where I vote everyone knows everyone so it is kind of unnecessary.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2007 3:01 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Terrye:

I think you're really nitpicking this to death. I did not set out to create an exhaustive list of all possible permutations of deserving poor.

It's enough to note there is a distinction.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2007 6:03 AM

The following hissed in response by: candy

I went to the local office of the Indiana Department of Motor Vehicles to get new plates yesterday. I asked about the cost of a photo I.D.for those who don't have a driver's licence and want to vote. I was told anyone over 18 can get one for free.

The above hissed in response by: candy [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2007 7:28 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved