Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 10:07 AM ET, 02/24/2011

Scott Walker understands power

By Ezra Klein

Thought Scott Walker's effort to reshape the balance of power in Wisconsin began and ended with his initiative to yank collective-bargaining rights away from public-employee unions? Think again. As my colleague Jennifer Rubin points out, he's using the absence of the state's Senate Democrats to pass a law requiring photo identification from voters. Such laws tend to exclude groups of voters who move a lot, don't drive or can't afford the fees required to keep their identification current -- groups that just happen to overlap with traditionally Democratic constituencies. Here's NYU's Brennan Center for Justice on who tends to get excluded:

The impact of ID requirements is even greater for the elderly, students, people with disabilities, low-income individuals, and people of color. Thirty-six percent of Georgians over 75 do not have a driver’s license. Fewer than 3 percent of Wisconsin students have driver’s licenses listing their current address. The same study found that African Americans have driver’s licenses at half the rate of whites, and the disparity increases among younger voters; only 22% of black men aged 18-24 had a valid driver’s license. Not only are minority voters less likely to possess photo ID, but they are also more likely than white voters to be selectively asked for ID at the polls.

That last point is important, too: These requirements tend to get enforced more heavily in minority- or immigrant-heavy districts, and less heavily in, say, retirement communities. Walker knows what he's doing here, just as he knows what he's doing in going after collective bargaining under the guise of increasing pension contributions. He's attempting to reshape Wisconsin's laws in a way that benefits Republicans and disadvantages Democrats, and he's being notably systematic about it. In her post, Rubin refers to him as "the canny governor," and though you can decide for yourself whether that's a compliment, it's undoubtedly accurate.

By Ezra Klein  | February 24, 2011; 10:07 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Andy Stern: 'It may not end beautifully in Wisconsin.'
Next: Did John Boehner accidentally make a shutdown more likely?

Comments

he may do some real damage, before the senators return again, from illinois, but i think that walker is in, way over his head now.
his state could turn into a tinderbox, and no-one wants to see things out of control.
the bottom line is, he has very little control over events now.
and as more and more people become engaged and mobilized, this has the potential to cause real damage, and to reflect very poorly on his ability to manage and reach conciliation within his state.
he may do what he can, but he is in an extremely precarious place right now, with the potential for anything to happen.

no matter who you are, or how powerful you are, that is not a good place for anyone to be.
just ask khaddafi.
this situation is not going to go away, and it is probably turning from headache to nightmare for him, despite his canniness in getting legislation passed.

Posted by: jkaren | February 24, 2011 10:29 AM | Report abuse

and i think by now, he understands, this is no reagan moment.
reagan had dignity, and he was very, very canny in working with people. he was an engaging and very humane man.
walker is no ronald reagan.
and he is certainly not having a "reagan moment."

and unlike reagan,
though walker may have power,
he is clearly displaying that in terms of "true" governance
of all of the people of his state,
he clearly doesnt know how to use it.

he has managed chaos right now,
but who knows what it can turn into tomorrow.
i wouldnt want to be in his shoes.

Posted by: jkaren | February 24, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Every election I've voted in I've needed to provide photo ID and be registered to vote at my location. In fact I moved just before the November 2010 elections and went to my new one and they sent me back to my old polling place because i wasn't listed there. Is that something that's not required in every state? Its not a national law? Shouldn't you be required to prove you're a citizen of a country, state, city, locality to vote in their elections?

Should we really be pushing to make it easier to have voter fraud?

So are you saying we should just take people's words for it that they're citizens of that state, county, city? if that's the case in the next election I'm spending the day going from town to town to vote.


What about state ID's are they acceptable? Other forms of picture ID's? I'd like to see them try to stop someone who's registered to vote and has a state or county ID. I think we'd hear about that.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 24, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

and furthermore,
the minute that an elected official says,
"i am not willing to negotiate.."
is the minute he should be turned out of office.
a huge part of his job description is to be able to negotiate.
the only people in this world who arent willing to negotiate,
are children under the age of three.

Posted by: jkaren | February 24, 2011 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Ezra,
Is this article about the budget bill containing the organizing restrictions, or about a separate stand alone bill that can be brought up without the budgetary quorum requirements? I can't tell from the information provided. I had thought the original budget bill had already passed the lower house.

"Wisconsin assembly agrees to union bill vote, as troopers seek Democratic senators"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/24/AR2011022402083.html?hpid=topnews

Posted by: jnc4p | February 24, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Sorry Ezra this whole column is nonsense. All the statistics are completely flawed.

For instance this statement:

"These requirements tend to get enforced more heavily in minority- or immigrant-heavy districts, and less heavily in, say, retirement communities."

is akin to saying that the fact that there are more arrests in minority or immigrant communities than retirement coummnities is discriminatory. In other words, it's an improper use of statistics.


"Fewer than 3 percent of Wisconsin students have driver’s licenses listing their current address"

There's a well settled body of case regarding college students and voting rights that won't be affected by this.

"Such laws tend to exclude groups of voters who move a lot, don't drive or can't afford the fees required to keep their identification current -"

People who move a lot SHOULD have more difficulty, even without a photo ID. Isn't that a cornerstone of preventing voter fraud?

The fee argument is the silliest argument of all for two reasons

- you don't HAVE to have a driver's license!

- in Maryland as in most states, the photo ID is already issued to the people you are most concerned about the elderly, and the disabled for free or for a nominal charge in connection with receiving other state and federal benefits.

By relating everything to a driver's license, you simply set up a straw man to knock down.

This was an absolutely terrible post, factually incorrect on all levels and full of misleading analysis, the worst thing you've written in a long time!

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Why don't they just go and make having health insurance a requirement for voting?

Either that or just go back to charging a poll tax.

Posted by: leoklein | February 24, 2011 10:43 AM | Report abuse

It's obvious what Walker is doing. Doesn't get his way and says, "I'll show you", with the maturity of maybe my preschooler, and goes on to do something else just as low. How ruthless can one man be? Does he think the residents of WI are that stupid? He is a greedy, shallow man, who wants power and control, and to live in a world designed for him, not anyone else. Even those who voted for him now recognize he pulled the wool over their eyes during his campaign. Manipulating creep. Too bad so many were fooled by his smooth talking routine.

Posted by: MommasHome | February 24, 2011 10:45 AM | Report abuse

leoklein:

There is absolutely no comparison between this and a poll tax. Virtually the only group excluded by such a requirement is immigrants, who of course SHOULDN'T be voting anyway.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 10:53 AM | Report abuse

visionbrkr - I've lived in NJ for most of my 72 years and voted in every state and federal election. I have never, I repeat never, been asked for any kind of ID. I just sign, they check the signature, and I vote.

Maybe you just look disreputable.

Posted by: lensch | February 24, 2011 11:05 AM | Report abuse

*Every election I've voted in I've needed to provide photo ID and be registered to vote at my location*

I agree with lensch-- there's something about you that is causing poll workers to shake you down for photo ID. I've voted in 4 different states over my lifetime and never encountered that at a polling place.

* He is a greedy, shallow man, who wants power and control, and to live in a world designed for him, not anyone else. *

There are many voters that admire that in a leader, because, deep down, they want to be that guy.

Posted by: constans | February 24, 2011 11:09 AM | Report abuse

lensch and constans:

Don't you have to produce a photo ID to cash a check, buy alcohol, fly on a plane, use a credit card (increasingly) and I'm sure a could produce a bunch of other times in a minute or two more of thought? Isn't voting at least as important as these activites?

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 11:18 AM | Report abuse

lensch,

well i thought you were above personal attacks but I guess not which is really disheartening. Yes i've had to sign and they check the signature but they do ask me for my license. Next time I'll not give it to them and see what happens.

And I've come to expect partisan attacks from constans. that being each time its a senior citizen at a retirement community where my polling place has been (from now on its at a school so I don't know who will be there or if i'll be asked for it). I wouldn't necessarily call it a "shakedown" but again congratulations in continuing your derogatory tones towards me. i hope you're proud of yourself because your lack of class shines through yet again.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 24, 2011 11:19 AM | Report abuse

visionbrkr - I simply reported the facts. My remark about being "disreputable" was a joke. If your sense of humor doesn't encompass it, I apologize.

johnmarshall - I have never been asked to produce a photo ID to buy alcohol or use a credit card (how could they over the phone or online?). I am sure that passing bad checks is much more prevalent than voting fraud which is a Republican myth. I no longer fly, but when I did I didn't have a photo ID to show them.

Voting is important. That is why you have to first register. This is when you prove you live in the district, not when you vote.

Posted by: lensch | February 24, 2011 11:33 AM | Report abuse

BTW as far as I can tell, photo ID is worthless. The only photo ID I have is my NJ licence. When they started putting pics on them, I did have to provide some documentation, but none of that had a photo. It could have been stolen out of somebody's drawer. I could have been a 6'4" guy with a turban and a long black beard carrying an AK47, and they would have taken my picture and then I would have a photo ID.

As Ezra says, the main purpose of requiring photo ID's for voting is to depress th voting of the poor.

Posted by: lensch | February 24, 2011 11:41 AM | Report abuse

lensch,

I appreicate that. I don't normally see that coming from you so that's fine. constans i have a feeling wasn't joking as per my previous discussions with him. That being said maybe i'm misremembering it and i've just given the license as I would have expected it to be required. I don't honestly remember. Next time though I won't give it and see what happens. That being said I don't have a problem with requiring some form of identification but also have a system in place to allow everyone to get this identification (free if needed) so that everyone can vote and that its taken as seriously as it should be.

As far as flying its definitely required now and in fact passports are required in some instances i believe.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 24, 2011 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"Such laws tend to exclude groups of voters who move a lot, don't drive or can't afford the fees required to keep their identification current -- groups that just happen to overlap with traditionally Democratic constituencies."

Team D just rammed through Obamacare, which just happens to provide benefits to groups which lean towards the Democrats (poor, minorities) and imposes costs on Republican leaning groups (elderly, business, wealthy).

Team D also passed ARRA, a good portion of which made it's way to unionized and/or public sector workers. Of course, team D also wants to raise taxes on the rich because of the debt.

Team D whined and moaned about the team R being the "Party of No".

I'd be happy if team D and team R took a hike, and let everyone live their own lives as free from the predations of politicians as possible, but if you're going to support the current system, at least don't be surprised when the other team strikes back.

Republicans are going to enact policies to their advantage, and the Democrats are going to try to obstruct them. Simple as that. In 2012 or 2014 it will probably reverse, and the game will go on.

Posted by: justin84 | February 24, 2011 11:46 AM | Report abuse

lensch wrote:


"As Ezra says, the main purpose of requiring photo ID's for voting is to depress th voting of the poor."

Another complete mischaracterization. The poor are in fact MORE likely to have a photo ID than some other classes because most of today's benefits that come from government require it. Again broad statements without any factual basis.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 11:53 AM | Report abuse

vision and other NJ people:

Just for your info, NJ was literally the last state in the union to require photos on driver's licenses, so your experiences are not typical of the nation as a whole.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 11:55 AM | Report abuse

the machievellian gop has their plan to finally consolidate all power: acorn - check, unions - check, voter id - check, citizens united - check, dumbing down americans - check, revising history - check, eliminating or greatly reducing student aid - check, big bird - check, a young woman's basic health - check, shutting down the government - check.

Posted by: sbvpav | February 24, 2011 12:07 PM | Report abuse

"The poor are in fact MORE likely to have a photo ID than some other classes because most of today's benefits that come from government require it."

I am curious about the data you are looking at in support of this statement. There seems to be a vast amount of research with results that point in the opposite direction:

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/research_on_voter_id/

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 12:20 PM | Report abuse

What a bunch of whining.

1. Voter ID has been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

2. Wisconsin Republicans have tried to pass voted ID several times and had it vetoed by Doyle. Everyone knew that the Republicans were big proponents of voter ID back in November, and the Republicans utterly, thoroughly shellacked the Democrats.

Posted by: krazen1211 | February 24, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

"Just for your info, NJ was literally the last state in the union to require photos on driver's licenses, so your experiences are not typical of the nation as a whole. "

When I got my first drivers license about 8 years ago, I had to bring a passport, a checking account statement, a report card, and my high school ID.

It's called 6 points of ID.

Posted by: krazen1211 | February 24, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

"Shouldn't you be required to prove you're a citizen of a country, state, city, locality to vote in their elections?"

Uh, you do that when you register, visionbreaker. Under penalty of perjury.

Voter suppression does more to sway elections, at a lower risk of prosecution and conviction, than voter fraud ever has. Voter ID laws are, by intention, legalized voter suppression, which is why the people who came up with caging and other voter-suppression methods are their main proponents.

Until the US has a single federal ID, or has state IDs that follow federal standards -- provided free of charge with no financial and logistical burden to applicants -- you're left dealing with a mess of differing standards of documentation to prove identity that has a disparate impact.

You probably aren't even aware that many African-Americans born in the South during the years of segregation don't have birth certificates because the hospital or county wouldn't issue them. Or that the recent Georgia voter ID law was written in a way that required residents of Atlanta who don't have cars to go somewhere inaccessible by public transit to put in their applications. You're so naive.

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | February 24, 2011 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Who knows the answer to the following questions (please, no partisan rants or making crap up!): What is the evidence that indicates we have a problem with fraudulent voting that requiring photo IDs would solve? Is voter fraud in Wisconsin a problem? Would requiring photo IDs disenfranchise more legitimate votes than fraudulent voters?

I'll check in periodically to see if someone has some REAL data. Again, no partisan rants or "instant" facts, please.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | February 24, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Ezra:

This was expected. In his 20-minute phone call with "Fake David Koch" he said they had a bunch of initiatives that didn't require a quorum that they knew Democrats really cared about which they planned to vote on. It's all a strong-arm tactic to bring Democrats back to the capitol. But these are all initiatives which can be undone. Nothing is more important than protecting the rights of workers to sit down at the negotiating table with their employer.

Posted by: southernbeale | February 24, 2011 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Patrick M:

Read the above info from the Brennan Center. It refers to DRIVER'S LICENSES, not photo ID. The two are NOT interchangeable. The law requires only photo ID, not a DL.

As for the poor, call up any DC department that provides services to the financially distressed (welfare if you're a Republican). They will tell you how to receive benefits and issue you a photo ID, those discrimnatory bastards! LOL

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse


post reader in wva wrote:

"Would requiring photo IDs disenfranchise more legitimate votes than fraudulent voters?"

Exactly how can you disenfranchise someone who has a legitimate right to vote by asking them to prove their identity? Does your bank violate your rights by asking you to do so to access YOUR money? Is your right to equal access to transportation violated by requiring that you provide photo id to fly?

Taking the argument to it's logical ends, requiring ANY proof of identity, even a matching signature at a polling place is a an attempt to disenfranchise. What about those who can't write their own name? What about those who moved to the community after the deadline to register to vote?


Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 12:46 PM | Report abuse

johnmarshall5446,

I have read the data. Note that Ezra's quote states that fewer than 3% of students in that state have a driver's license with their current address. That does not mean that 97% have the alternative photo id, that means that (being students) the vast majority carry a driver's license with the outdated address of their parents' home, which they do not update because (being students) their actual address changes frequently, and it would be burdensome to obtain a revised license every few months during their four years in college.

Again, I pointed you to an entire body of research that indicates that a photo id requirement disenfranchises many voters who traditionally lean Democratic. If you have research that indicates all of the statistics are wrong, please do share it, otherwise we must assume that your theory is supposition.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 12:47 PM | Report abuse

@pseudo,

I was wondering when your personal attacks would come in. Good to see you and constans together again.

that being said yes I'm aware of the segregation of the south but I didn't realize it was still going on. do you mean that if a 70 year old has tried for the last 40 years or so they couldn't go to their local county offices and get a county ID if they're African-American. Now that IS news.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 24, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

I have read the data. Note that Ezra's quote states that fewer than 3% of students in that state have a driver's license with their current address.


@Patrick,

does the law state that the address must match to be able to vote? If that does then its wrong because as you say many people move pretty frequently. If not then its another example of Ezra making more out of something that it reasonably is to try to score some sort of political talking point. The sad thing is we'll end up seeing it on Maddow or The Last Word this evening I suspect.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 24, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"Exactly how can you disenfranchise someone who has a legitimate right to vote by asking them to prove their identity? Does your bank violate your rights by asking you to do so to access YOUR money? Is your right to equal access to transportation violated by requiring that you provide photo id to fly?"

The answer is contained in your question. As an adult citizen, you have a RIGHT to cast a vote. You do not have a "right" to open a bank account or ride in an airplane, those are simply private business transactions. Denying the right to vote to legitimate voters who do not meet additional requirements is a de facto form of disenfranchisement.

The question raised by post_reader_in_wv is valid. Where is the evidence of significant voter fraud in Wisconsin that necessitates any new requirements?

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

@lensch wrote: "As Ezra says, the main purpose of requiring photo ID's for voting is to depress th voting of the poor."

No, Democrats have resisted voter ID checks for so long because they enable fradulent voting to persist that primarily benefits their party - e.g. out of state college students, people re-using the names of dead people, etc. There are thousands of documented cases like this. Producing a photo ID is NOT an unduly burdensome request in order to allow voters to wield one of their most significant powers - the right to vote. If you can't figure out how to get a photo ID that proves the validity of your voter registration in this day and age, when they're widely available from DMVs, places of employment, the State Department and other sources, you're probably too stupid to be voting in the first place.

Posted by: Illini | February 24, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

patrick:

Again the "entire body of research" refers almost exclusively to driver's licenses, as you acknowledge by not challenging me on the Brennan Center findings quoted by Ezra.

I don't know of a college that does not require a student photo ID, do you? As I wrote above, there is a whole body of court cases defining under what circumstances college students may vote and where. This law cannot change the affect of those rulings. Google them at your leisure.

Furthermore, you haven't addressed my factually correct information that to receive most social services associated with the poor and "disenfranchised"; you already MUST either have a valid photo ID such as a DL, or they will provide you with one.

I'm no Walker fan as you can see from my posts this week, and a lifelong Democrat to boot. However nonsense about photo ID from the Democratic Party is still nonsense. In the 21st century, a photo ID is a fact of life, not an undue burden.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Uh, you do that when you register, visionbreaker. Under penalty of perjury."

Which is why same-day registration is complete bull****.

Posted by: krazen1211 | February 24, 2011 1:07 PM | Report abuse

patrick wrote:

"Denying the right to vote to legitimate voters who do not meet additional requirements is a de facto form of disenfranchisement."

You misphrased the statement. Proving that they ARE legitimate voters is a legally recognized requirment in every state of the union, held valid by a hundred years of case law.

We are talking about HOW they prove they are legitimate voters, not whether legitimate voters have the right to vote.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 1:10 PM | Report abuse

visionbrkr,

I do not know the precise requirements of the Wisconsin law, but I presume that the photo id would have to show the physical address that matches the voter registration in order to qualify you to vote in that particular precinct. Otherwise the suspicion would be that the voter is casting ballots in multiple precincts. God only knows how photo id would possibly apply to absentee ballots that are sent through the mail.

Please follow this link and review the actual research:

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/research_on_voter_id/

Perhaps Democrats are only imagining that youth, the elderly, and the poor are most likely to be turned away from polling places due to a lack of photo id, but the research seems to support that contention. If there is a research indicating otherwise, I would like to read it as well, but so far I have not found any.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Here in Connecticut, everybody must have an ID to vote. No ID in your possession, you cast a provisional ballot and bring in your ID within an allocated time period to validate your ballot. And IDs can be gotten at no cost.

Bob Hein

Posted by: bobhein | February 24, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

Voter Fraud? Give me a break, voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. Voter fraud refers to intentional acts by INDIVIDUAL voters to falsely register or vote. People should be vastly more concerned about election fraud and quit with the idiotic notion that "illegal aliens" are voting. What a bunch of clap trap - there is no evidence of major voter fraud ANYWHERE in the U.S.

Posted by: mancorn | February 24, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"If anything, while the Public review of the Act didn't lead to the result of upcoming action on the Senate floor, it certainly revealed what may be some hurdles in the proposed measure in the form of weaknesses in the language and possible drawbacks with it's potential implementation. The biggest problems that lawmakers and officials see in the current language and provisions in Senate Bill 6 are the costs to the state in providing IDs to voters, the distribution of doing so, and in particular the implementation of the Bill's requirements and the reasonable or unreasonable expectations this will have on County Election Clerks and polling places. The rush by many on the GOP side of the photo ID act implementation is to have the law passed and in place by the April 4 election. Election clerks and even elected officials have doubts that this can be done effectively with the bill's current state."

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Wisconsin Voter ID Act may finally be headed for passage - La Crosse Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-la-crosse/wisconsin-voter-id-act-may-finally-be-headed-for-passage#ixzz1EtyAO3Zh
"

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Associated Press - February 24, 2011 12:45 PM ET

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Republicans in the Wisconsin state Senate have debated a bill requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls, but were unable to pass it because 14 Democrats were absent.

All of them skipped town last week to avoid having to vote on a Republican-backed bill that would take away nearly all collective bargaining rights for most public employees.

The 19 Republicans left have been taking up other bills in the Democrats' absence in part as an attempt to pressure the Democrats to return. Democrats are opposed to the voter ID requirement.

The Senate debated the bill and moved it one step away from passage Thursday, but because it spends money they couldn't pass it without at least one Democrat present.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Illini - show ANY evidence that there are "thousands of documented cases" of "out of state college students (voting twice), people re-using the names of dead people" in the last 20 years. This is complete B.S. spouted by idiots. You're just making junk up in your head and then claiming it's true.

Posted by: mancorn | February 24, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

"I don't know of a college that does not require a student photo ID, do you? As I wrote above, there is a whole body of court cases defining under what circumstances college students may vote and where. This law cannot change the affect of those rulings. Google them at your leisure."

The Wisconsin law does not allow for student id:

"Senate Bill 6 stipulates the only forms of identification that can be utilized to vote are a drivers license (with a photo) or a photo ID issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles which is free — but only if you request that it be free."

Note also the budgetary impact:

"Then there is the question of the cost of implementing Senate Bill 6. The Wisconsin Fiscal Bureau has estimated a cost of approximately $2.5 million for the state-issued photo IDs and that cost apparently does not include additional hours and personnel that might be required by the Department of Transportation to implement the photo ID process."

http://www.sheboyganpress.com/article/20110130/SHE06/101300388/1110/Commentary--Wisconsin-photo-ID--Fraud-prevention-or-vote-suppression

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Here is an example of the flawed methodology of the Brennan Center work:

"To answer this question we fielded a unique public opinion survey in 2007 in the state of
Indiana to determine the impact of voter identification laws on several demographic
groups of voters, African Americans, the elderly, the less educated, and the poor."

Note they are working by opinion poll, not even whether or not the individuals are registered to vote, or if they have been in some way impede in voting by not having a ID!

Further on, they come up with this unique reasoning:


"The 2000 decennial census reports that in a population of 6,080,485 residents,
over 74 percent of Indiana residents are of voting age, and over 12%, or 754,980
residents, are over 65 years of age. In regard to race and nativity, over 3% of the state’s
population is foreign born and over half a million residents, or 8.4%, are African
American. Further, over 3.5%, or 212,817 residents, are Hispanic. There is also a sizable
segment of individuals within Indiana who due to their socioeconomic status may be
highly impacted by stricter voting requirements. Specifically, 21 % of households earned
less than $20,000 (in 2000), and 18 percent of the adult population does not have a high
school diploma. All together, these groups make up a substantial number of residents that
would face a greater burden on their ability to participate by strict voter identification
laws.

Is that bizarre flawed logic or what? What is the point of addressing a population that legally CANNOT vote, with or without photo ID (the foreign born, and if by separately categorizing them, the implication that the Hispanic category are also non-citizens)?

Also how does making less than $20,000 or not having a high school diploma affect one's ability to get a photo id? The obvious answer is that it does not.

I could go and on about how poorly done some of these studies are, but read them for yourself, I'm running out of characters.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

"Furthermore, you haven't addressed my factually correct information that to receive most social services associated with the poor and "disenfranchised"; you already MUST either have a valid photo ID such as a DL, or they will provide you with one.

I'm no Walker fan as you can see from my posts this week, and a lifelong Democrat to boot. However nonsense about photo ID from the Democratic Party is still nonsense. In the 21st century, a photo ID is a fact of life, not an undue burden."


An elderly member of my family has resided at a nursing home for almost 20 years. Her driver's license expired long ago, and she does not have any sort of state issued id, nor does she need one to receive her social security checks. Her finances are managed by her daughter. She is very frail physically, but still sharp mentally. If she was required to visit some government office, wait in lines, show proof of residence and birth certificate, etc. simply in order to continue voting, I doubt that she would feel able to go through that ordeal.

That would be a disenfranchising "undue burden," in light of her personal circumstances.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

patrick:

That was my fault. I was not addressing whether or not the college photo ID could be used to vote, but as a reference to the fact that a getting a photo ID is not an undue burden for them. My language was unclear.

Again the case law is clear about when and where college students may vote. If college students in Wiconsin who are otherwise eligible to vote are prevented from voting because they cannot legally obtain a state ID, then that part of the law would of course be unconstituional.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"If she was required to visit some government office, wait in lines, show proof of residence and birth certificate, etc. simply in order to continue voting, I doubt that she would feel able to go through that ordeal.

That would be a disenfranchising "undue burden," in light of her personal circumstances."

No it would really have nothing whatsoever to do legally with it. An individual's personal circumstances have nothing to do with the right to vote, only whether or not the state is preventing her from voting. Otherwise the state would need to provide polling places directly in nursing homes, hospitals, and other places where many individuals have difficulty voting. That's one reason for absentee balloting

You don't understand the legal standard required. Disparate impact, is legally not automatically equivalent to discriminatory. Look it up.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

visionbrkr,

I do not know the precise requirements of the Wisconsin law, but I presume that the photo id would have to show the physical address that matches the voter registration in order to qualify you to vote in that particular precinct.


Why would you presume that other than to bash on Governor Walker? Do you have a copy of the law that states that it must match or just that the photo must be a reasonable likeness?


also you're sending me to the Breannan Center to help me clarify an interpretation of how the law will be enforced. I'd need to see the actaul law itself which i haven't been able to find yet.

Posted by: visionbrkr | February 24, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Patrick:

One quick note about "disenfranchising" before I run errands. My polling place is about 2 miles away. In some large states, a particular indidvidual may be 10-20 miles away from their polling place due to remoteness. In the city, a polling place may be withing walking distance, whereas mine is driving and in some unique areas, voters may need to use a boat or even plane to get away from their residence.

Does the comparison of the difficulties in these voting patterns mean that the state is disenfranchising voters, and/or that the state should be legally required to provide transport?

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

@johnmarshall - my equal protection rights are compromised by anyone who casts a vote in my jurisdiction who was not legitimately registered to vote there, either by registration error, mistake, or fraud. I appreciate your mother's challenges, but her difficulty in getting an ID should not be a blanket excuse to loosen the voter verification requirements to the point where invalid votes can be permitted to occur.

Posted by: Illini | February 24, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse

"You don't understand the legal standard required. Disparate impact, is legally not automatically equivalent to discriminatory. Look it up."

She has always had a polling place in the nursing home itself. She has been voting there continuously over the past 20 years.

The point of the anecdote is not to address "the legal standard." The point is to support the contention that these requirements (whether or not they are constitutional) do tend to suppress the voting of certain demographics. There are reasons why Republicans are pushing a bill in Wisconsin that will ADD a couple of million dollars to their deficit, and there are reasons why the Democrats are resisting it, and there is no evidence of any significant voter fraud having taken place in that state that requires such a tight id requirement fix.

Note than in Alabama voters must show id, but all of the following are acceptable proof of identity: government issued-photo ID, employee ID with photo, Alabama college/university ID with photo, utility bill, bank statement, government check, or paycheck, ID card issued by any state or the U.S. government, U.S. passport, Alabama hunting or fishing permit or gun permit, FAA-issued pilot's license, U.S. military ID, certified birth certificate, Social Security card, naturalization document, court record of adoption, court record of name change, Medicaid or Medicare card, electronic benefit transfer card, government documents showing name and address of voter.

My relative in the nursing home could comply with those requirements without suffering an "undue burden." The Wisconsin law, on the other hand, would be too high a hurdle for her.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

@johnmarshall5446, who asked, "Exactly how can you disenfranchise someone who has a legitimate right to vote by asking them to prove their identity?" A reasonable question.

You can disenfranchise someone from voting by requiring them to provide identification by some means which is an unreasonable burden for them to provide. Now, what constitute a reasonable burden of proof becomes the argument, and the arguments on both sides of that question have been (sometimes vociferously) argued on these pages. Perhaps we can agree that discriminatory literacy tests and poll taxes are unreasonable (actually, unconstitutional) barriers to voting, whereas some sort of identity proof is not. But this is a question of "degree," not of "kind."

But rather than exhausting ourselves over this significant question, I think that the OTHER questions I asked are important, too, and the answers to all, taken together, help provide a solution. If there IS no evidence of voter fraud which justifies a change of rules, then apparently we should be in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode, and current ID proof is sufficient. Gov. Walker wants to change the law. Has he proved it hasn't worked? Has he proved that his solution is better? I don't know, which is why I asked my questions.

I suspect we may come down on opposite sides of this issue, but I thank you nonetheless for not ranting.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | February 24, 2011 2:01 PM | Report abuse

illini:

You missed it, and I did not make it clear. I was quoting Patrick in the post above that one.

You and I have no disagreements.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

The rich who own the republican party are VERY,VERY smart.
divided the large group(workers) by pitting them again each other, making smaller groups, and use them to held you pick themselfs off, group by group.
the smart get richer
an the dumb get poorer.

Posted by: dv1236 | February 24, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

"Does the comparison of the difficulties in these voting patterns mean that the state is disenfranchising voters, and/or that the state should be legally required to provide transport?"

No, I don't think the state has any "legal" requirement to provide "transport" to people in rural areas whose polling places are distant. I am not concerned about what is legal or not legal in this discussion, I am simply addressing the validity of the argument that a tight id restriction will discourage certain segments of society that traditionally lean Democratic from participating in elections.

Take a look at the data in this study from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute, about the persons who do not currently meet the requirements of the law:

http://www.brennancenter.org/page/-/d/download_file_50902.pdf

There simply is no evidence to support your statement that "The poor are in fact MORE likely to have a photo ID than some other classes...." The statistics show that the poor, the elderly, and students are the least likely persons to possess id that meets the very tight restrictions of the proposed law in Wisconsin.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Based on the idiotic, made up stuff coming from "johnmarshall" on this thread, the real John Marshall, who established the principal of judicial review (another shibboleth of rightwing nutjobs), is spinning in his grave.

Seriously, dude, you are one of the stupidest commenters I've ever come across. Go back and get your GED or something, and stop embarrassing yourself.

Posted by: brewmn | February 24, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"If there IS no evidence of voter fraud which justifies a change of rules, then apparently we should be in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mode, and current ID proof is sufficient. Gov. Walker wants to change the law. Has he proved it hasn't worked? Has he proved that his solution is better? I don't know, which is why I asked my questions."

post_reader_in_wv,

I have been trying to investigate what the voter fraud problem in Wisconsin might be that would justify Governor Walker adding millions to his deficit and going from being one of the easier states in which to cast a ballot to becoming the most difficult.

The best analysis that I have found is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washington/12fraud.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

It appears that true voter fraud in Wisconsin is very rare, and that in nearly every instance of invalid ballots there is no criminal intent, just misunderstanding of eligibility requirements (most of the few prosecutions in Wisconsin have failed to produce a conviction).

In these cases (for instance, a convicted felon who mistakenly thinks it is alright to register to vote) the requirement to show a driver's license at the polling place would do absolutely nothing to prevent the situation that is taking place.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

brewmn:

DUDE, the fact that you're against me, is the best endorsement I could hope for, thanks!

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Patrick wrote:

"Take a look at the data in this study from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute, about the persons who do not currently meet the requirements of the law:"

Sigh, for the 1000% time, look at the title of the work you cite:

"The Driver License Status of the Voting Age Population in Wisconsin"

NOTHING in the new law would require anyone to have a driver's license or to pay the fees associated!

Even in that study, see the foloowing statement:

"Less than
half (47 percent) of Milwaukee County African American adults and 43 percent of Hispanic
adults have a valid drivers license compared to 85 percent of white adults in the Balance of State
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Employment and Training Institute, www.eti.uwm.edu, June 2005. 2
(BOS, i.e., outside Milwaukee County). The situation for young adults ages 18-24 is even worse
-- with only 26 percent of African Americans and 34 percent of Hispanics in Milwaukee County
with a valid license compared to 71 percent of young white adults in the Balance of State."

Why separate out Hispanics? Note that Koreans, and other large ethnic groups are not listed separately. The only reason to separate out Hispanics is if they were not born here and are not citizens.

BY DEFINITION, if you are in that category you cannot legally vote.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

post reader:

Just noticed your prior post. Yes, we could speculate about Walker's motivation and I hold no brief for him. I was trying to argue the legal reasoning however, and not the political motivation.

As I said above, disparate impact and discrimination are not synonymous from a legal stand point. To take a case like this to court, you would have to prove more than simple numbers of people who already do or don't have photo ID. That fact has escaped a few posters above.

Thanks for the reply.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 3:39 PM | Report abuse

@ Patrick_M:
Thanks for doing some research. Of course, some will shoot the messenger/claim that the NYT cannot be believed, etc.

To all:
Others are invited to refute it the evidence Patrick_M has provided, of course.

As for me, I (obviously) have no vote in Wisconsin), so I don't get to DO anything. But I do think it is NOT unreasonable to agree with Klein that the voting registration is politically motivated. If there is no voting fraud problem in Wisconsin (again, where's the evidence) and he knows it, Gov. Walker is lying. If there is no voting fraud problem in Wisconsin and yet Walker thinks there is, he is being stupid.

Now before you think that I'm some kind of raving leftist, I'll tell you that I agree IN PRINCIPLE with Walker about public employee benefit packages being unsustainable. I think we'll be moving to a greatly higher percentages of defined contribution plans for public employees. The demographics no longer support the kind of defined benefit plans we're talking about here. It doesn't matter that I wish they did--they don't. But Walker's motives are so far from pure here. If the pension/benefit plan must be reconfigured, that isn't an excuse to treat workers OR VOTERS unfairly.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | February 24, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

johnmarshall5446,

If you actually read the study in full, you will see that it also talks about the state-issued alternative id (a lot).

I assume that they look at African-American and Hispanic populations, and not people of Korean descent, because those two groups comprise much larger percentages of the Wisconsin citizenry. The point is that affluent white middle-aged voters are dramatically more likely to hold driver's licenses (or the state photo id) with an accurate current address than are students, the poor, minorities, and the elderly.

"NOTHING in the new law would require anyone to have a driver's license or to pay the fees associated!"

Yes, I know. But it is clear which demographics would need to make the additional efforts (or lose the right to vote).

If you wish to make the argument that the new law will not have the effect of suppressing turnout among these groups (that tend to vote Democratic), you have not supported that argument. The state's own analysis of the new law says that will need to brace for huge numbers of people that currently hold neither form of id, and you argued was that the poor and the elderly must certainly have photo id already. I just don't see any evidence that this will not have a significantly greater negative impact on Democratic turn-out than it will have upon Republican turn-out.

Nor have you answered the "if it ain't broke" question raised by post_reader_in_wv about the mysterious existing voter fraud that this extremely tight requirement would supposedly remedy. Why must this change, with its multi-million dollar price tag take place at this time, when the Governor is trying to cut spending?

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"As I said above, disparate impact and discrimination are not synonymous from a legal stand point. To take a case like this to court, you would have to prove more than simple numbers of people who already do or don't have photo ID. That fact has escaped a few posters above."

I assume that last sentence refers to me, so (yet again), I am not arguing about the legality of the proposed Wisconsin. statute, I am merely arguing that if passed the new requirement will have the effect of reducing turn-out for Democrats in Wisconsin elections.

That is the effect, that is the motive, that is why support and opposition break down along strict party lines, and (most importantly) there is no indication that there is any significant voter fraud that has taken place in Wisconsin that this law would resolve for future elections.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 4:07 PM | Report abuse

@post_reader_in_wv,

Thanks. By the way, you and I are entirely on the same page about the need for reform of public employee pension schemes.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

patrick:

Hey, I have enjoyed the discussion, even though we are on opposite sides.

We reach different conclusions about reason behind the separation of white and Hispanic categories, and the break out of no other ethnic group. I assume that Hispanics are singled out as referring to non-citizens, you may believe otherwise. Fair enough.

"Yes, I know. But it is clear which demographics would need to make the additional efforts (or lose the right to vote)."

See I find this a fundamentally flawed statement on several levels. There is nothing in the study, or perhaps I missed it and you will correct me, to suggest that those populations consistently vote now and that the pattern will be signiifcantly impacted by the law, which does not take away their right to vote btw.

Again if you read the SCOTUS decisions in this area, they make the distinction time and again that raw numbers do not prove discrimination. Either a discriminatory intent or numbers significant enough to have a discriminatory effect even in the absence of intent is required. In browsing through the Brennan studies, perhaps you have read them more thoroughly than I, there is no attmept to prove that voters are unable or somehow prevented from getting a photo ID, but only that they currently do not possess one, as proved by phone polling.

I would argue that unlike a poll tax or literacy test, this isn't about denying anyone the right to vote who currently has it, but about requiring proof that this person is someone the existing law recognizes as in fact possessing the right to vote.

As I said, enjoyable.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 4:17 PM | Report abuse

patrick wrote:

"That fact has escaped a few posters above.I assume that last sentence refers to me"


No not at all!. I was actually thinking of the guy who called me dude. LOL

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

"do you mean that if a 70 year old has tried for the last 40 years or so they couldn't go to their local county offices and get a county ID if they're African-American."

Trying to make sense of that word salad: what I mean is that restrictive Voter ID laws expose the messy old patchwork of county-based registration for vital records. Documents alone don't establish your identity: they act as a substitute for trust.

Many people evacuated from the Gulf Coast after Katrina had real problems proving who they were in their new locations, because they lacked both documentation and the documentation they needed to get documentation.

Another example:

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/8206/

And another:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24490932/

Posted by: pseudonymousinnc | February 24, 2011 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"See I find this a fundamentally flawed statement on several levels. There is nothing in the study, or perhaps I missed it and you will correct me, to suggest that those populations consistently vote now and that the pattern will be signiifcantly impacted by the law, which does not take away their right to vote btw."

Surely you are aware that when Democrats engage in get-out-the-vote efforts, they do everything possible to turn out young voters, social security retirees, minorities, and less affluent voters. Anything that makes it more difficult for voters in those constituencies to participate in elections will suppress turn-out on the Democratic side. I gave you the example of my elderly relative in a nursing home. She votes faithfully now, but almost certainly would not continue to vote if she were required to get herself to the motor vehicles licensing office and jump through all of the necessary hoops to obtain valid state-issued photo id.

"I would argue that unlike a poll tax or literacy test, this isn't about denying anyone the right to vote who currently has it, but about requiring proof that this person is someone the existing law recognizes as in fact possessing the right to vote."

Again, I have not argued that this requirement won't pass some sort of legal muster. It is all perfectly legal and constitutional for all I know. I am arguing only that adding new requirements to casting a ballot has a disenfranchising effect among certain groups, and that these requirements will inevitably create a lower number of eligible Democratic-leaning voters for the party to turn out in future elections.

If the object is simple proof of identity, why not allow more alternative documents, as they do in Alabama? And where are the documented cases of voter fraud that the new requirement would have prevented? The intent is purely political, because the effect is purely political.

I have enjoyed the discussion too. Have a good evening.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 4:54 PM | Report abuse

psuedo:

So what should the standard be for voter registration given your above post.

Let's not talk photo ID for a second, just registration. Do I just say I'm Joe Jones and I live here and then be eligible?

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"We reach different conclusions about reason behind the separation of white and Hispanic categories, and the break out of no other ethnic group. I assume that Hispanics are singled out as referring to non-citizens, you may believe otherwise. Fair enough."

A final postscript -

Wisconsin is 89.4% white.

6.2% black.

5.3% "Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin"

The total Asian population is 2.3%, so it is logical that the study omitted the subset of 2.3% that would be Korean since it is such a small group.

I don't see any reason to think that most or all of Wisconsin's Hispanic population in the study are non-citizens. The census data shows the total "foreign born" population in Wisconsin is only 3.6%, a fraction of the national average, and that number presumably includes quite a few persons who have obtained their legal citizenship.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/55000.html

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 5:10 PM | Report abuse

@ Patrick_M and johnmarshall5446:

We know we don't have to agree about everything and it seems we can deal with that. I must sign off now (dinner-time--I have my priorities!), but I didn't want to leave without thanking both of you for a lively, stimulating discussion. Rational discourse, what a concept! And to find it (admittedly, all too rare a find) on the WaPo comment pages! Wonders never cease.

Posted by: post_reader_in_wv | February 24, 2011 5:39 PM | Report abuse

patrick and post reader:

It is a discussion worth having is it not?

I looked up an interesting statistic from Gallup. As of September of last year, the percentage of those 65 and over nationally who identify themseves as Democrats or leaning that way, was only 42%.

So if that statistic were to hold true in Wisconsin, then it would seem to torpedo the argument that this legislation has the effect of boosting Republican chances by discriminating against the elderly.

Posted by: johnmarshall5446 | February 24, 2011 5:59 PM | Report abuse

John,

Yes, the elderly are not a monolithic constituency among Democrats. In fact in the 2010 election, they were a big part of the Republican victory:

"Compared with 2008, voting dropped off [in 2010] particularly among pro-Democratic groups:

• Young voters were down by 55 percent.

• African-Americans were down by 43 percent.

• Hispanics were down by 40 percent.

The analysis is based primarily on exit poll data and estimates from the U.S. Elections Project.

Senior citizens turned out in force -- their turnout was 16 percent higher than in the last midterm election of 2006, and 59 percent of them voted Republican, up 10 percentage points from 2006. While voters 65 and older are 13 percent of the U.S. population, they made up 21 percent of this year's electorate."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/23/1939055/2010-electorate-elderly-wealthy.html#ixzz1Ev8HcYuj

So when Democrats work to turn out elderly voters, it is a more targeted approach, that will vary from one region to another, and will be based on the issues in a particular election. It is hard to say whether the recent trend among the elderly to self-identify as Democrat less frequently than they once did will continue in the long term, but last year, at least, there was definitely a shift.

And, post_reader_in_wv, I also thank you and johnmarshall5446 for a discussion that was rich in substance and free of the invective that too often takes over the threads here.

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 6:14 PM | Report abuse

Senate stops short of voter ID passage

by Bob Hague on February 24, 2011

in Elections,Politics & Government

The Wisconsin Senate stopped short of a final vote Thursday on legislation which would require citizens show photo identification on order to exercise their right to vote in Wisconsin elections. Senator Joe Liebham said removing the fiscal aspect of the bill to allow a vote without Democrats present would have raised a constitutional issue – creating a poll tax. “In the bill is the requirement that you need to have an ID, and if we removed the fiscal aspect of providing free IDs it could have opened up that question of not allowing individuals to get free IDs, therefore creating a poll tax,” said the Sheboygan Republican.

The bill has been amended to include passports, photo ID issued by tribal governments, and naturalization papers as acceptable forms of identification. The requirement to show ID at polling places would go into effect next January. Liebham said voters will be asked to show identification in the April election, and if they can’t provide it they’ll be allowed to vote. They’ll also be given information to prepare them for the requirement next year. Voters would also be expected to sign the voter roll each time they vote. Liebham said the cost of the bill, primarily for issuing free ID to those who cannot afford it, should be about one to one and a-half million dollars.


( http://www.wrn.com/2011/02/senate-stops-short-of-voter-id-passage/ )

Posted by: Patrick_M | February 24, 2011 7:12 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with proving you are a registered, legal citizen of the United States and the district in which you are voting??

You can not find a single thing wrong with havieng to prove you are who you are and are a LEGAL voter. Illegals are not elegable to vote. What is wrong with proving you are a LEGAL voter??

Answer, nothing.
If democrats are afraid they have a lot of illegal people voting for them then that is their own problem. Democrats, fix your voters but do not expect the rest of us to let illegals vote.

Posted by: markandbeth92 | February 25, 2011 8:57 AM | Report abuse

To quote Animal Farm: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." In Walker's world, some of us are more equal than others of us, and the SCOTUS agrees with him.

Posted by: wd1214 | February 25, 2011 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Once again Ezra fudges the facts (actually he just lies):
------------------------------------------
In discussing the photo ID bill passed in Wisconsin, Ezra Klein repeats a favorite talking point of liberals: “Such laws tend to exclude groups of voters who move a lot, don’t drive or can’t afford the fees required to keep their identification current — groups that just happen to overlap with traditionally Democratic constituencies.”
-------------------------------------------
The problem is that this is false. In a 6-3 decision with the majority opinion written by a liberal icon, then-Justice John Paul Stevens, the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana voter ID law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a similar Georgia law.

The lower courts in these cases (the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in the Indiana case and the U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Georgia) found that there was no evidence that anyone was denied the ability to vote because of lack of photo ID.

Posted by: drowningpuppies | February 26, 2011 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company