By Kenneth J. Theisen
On Monday, April 28th the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier to “legally” steal elections through the enactment of stricter voter
identification laws. The court voted 6-3 to uphold Indiana’s
restrictive voter ID law in the case of Crawford v. Marion County
Election Board. Six of the Justices agreed that Indiana’s law places a
heavier burden on some eligible citizens, particularly elderly and
low-income persons who could be blocked from voting without the proper
documentation. Still the court ruled that there was not sufficient
evidence to find the law unconstitutional. Under Indiana’s law, voters
must present a government-issued photo ID with an expiration date that
has not elapsed. The law does not accept Veterans’ IDs, Congressional
IDs, student IDs, or work IDs.
The court’s ruling should not come as a surprise as it was the U.S. Supreme Court which helped Bush steal the Presidential election in 2000 in its ruling in Bush v. Gore. This latest ruling just allows future elections to be stolen as well. But at least the theft will be legal.
This country has a long history of restricting the right to vote “legally.” There was a time that only white male property owners were allowed to vote. For half of the nation’s history, women were not allowed to vote. Poll taxes, literacy tests, vouchers of “good character,” and disqualification for “crimes of moral turpitude” were all used at various times to keep people from voting. In the South in the 19th and part of the 20th century it was not uncommon for blacks to be lynched for trying to vote. Although lynchings were extralegal, the lynchers were never prosecuted.
The ID laws are just an extension of previous methods of keeping people from voting. Even today many people previously convicted of crimes are forbidden the right to vote. In states like Florida voter rolls have been purged to remove people who have been convicted. All too often, the purge removes thousands who actually have the right to vote, but have names similar to those who do not.
Monday’s ruling is seen as a victory for Republicans who have been pushing for more restrictive voting laws in order to suppress the vote. In advocating such voter suppression laws they claim that there is a problem with massive voting fraud that can only be halted with such ID laws as Indiana’s. But their real objection is that many of those without the proper ID were not voting Republican. Republicans were unable to point to a single instance of voter impersonation in Indiana in order to cast a ballot. But that did not stop the Indiana legislature which was dominated by Republicans from passing the ID law under review by the court. Even though only a few voters are kept from voting, this can make a major difference in tight races and that is what really drove the politicians. Justice Stevens admitted the law may have been motivated by partisan concerns, but stated that was not sufficient to make it unconstitutional.
Some 20 states have voter ID laws. Several states with such laws allow people to furnish forms of identification such as a Social Security card, a student ID, a passport, or a utility bill with the name and address of the voter. But Indiana’s law is much more restrictive. In evidence presented in this case it was estimated that as many as 43,000 Indiana voters lacked the required ID cards. They would not be allowed to vote unless they go to the county seat with a birth certificate to prove their identity. According to Justice David Souter, “The upshot is this … a significant number of state residents will be discouraged or disabled from voting.”
In addition to Justice Stevens who found the law valid, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred with Stevens” opinion. But Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito who also upheld the law went much further than the other majority judges. They stated that voter ID laws are eminently reasonable, whether or not they have an effect on many voters. In other words even if millions of people are kept from voting, the laws would still be constitutional. In addition to Souter, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg dissented in the case and found the ID law to be unconstitutional.
To see the possible impact of this decision consider the statement of Justin Levitt, legal counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice in New York. He said, “In the three years since this case was brought, reliable studies have shown that 10-12% of eligible voting-age Americans do not have voter government-issued photo identification, particularly low-income, minority, senior, and student voters. Unfortunately, some will ignore these facts, and seek to use this ruling to manipulate the rules of the game and block these eligible voters from the ballot box.” Since most elections are settled by much smaller margins, strict voter ID laws could one day have the same impact as those laws enacted during the Jim Crow era.
In light of this ruling, we should expect the right-wing to propose many laws in other states that will have the result of suppressing voting. But after living under the Bush regime for the last 7 years, this should come as no surprise. A return to the era of Jim Crow voting rights would be consistent with other fascist policies instituted in the last few years. As it says in the WCW call, “The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, and for generations to come. We must act now; the future is in the balance.”
Ken
Theisen is a veteran activist of movements opposing U.S. imperialism,
its wars and domination of countries throughout the world, and an advocate
against domestic violence in the San Francisco Bay Area.