Voter ID's

And the Supreme Court of the United States of American (henceforth known as "SCOTUS") has agreed to hear a case about a Voter ID law in Indiana. The argument for them: it reduces voter fraud (?) which I don't think is entirely true. Yes, it will hopefully prevent dead people voting, but how will it prevent hundreds of voters showing up as felons when they're not? How will it limit voter intimidation? The case against it...well, the media is reporting that "Democrats oppose them on grounds that they lower the turnout among people who tend to vote Democratic" (from the NYTimes).

My opposition to it is this: it's a poll tax. Poll taxes were found unconstitutional in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections, 383 U. S. 663, 666-668 (1966). I give you the full citation so that you can look it up at your leisure. I would just link to it in FindLaw.com, but it seems that FindLaw is requiring logins (free, but a hassle) now.

There is no state-issued photo-ID that you don't pay money for and there is no substantive difference between requiring you pay money or requiring that you present an item for which you had to pay money.

And, no, you do not need a state-issued photo ID for day to day life. You are only required that you have a driver's license if you are driving a car. Lots of people don't drive cars. You can get non-license state ID's, but they still cost money. As long as these ID's cost money, there will be people who can't get them. These people will be disenfranchised simply because they don't have money to spare for an ID that they've gotten by without.

And no, it's not only illegal immigrants who don't have state-issued ID's. People lose those things you know, and lots of people never even get them. I've got a great friend in Manhattan who doesn't have one because he's never had to drive. People get their license's taken away, but last I checked, we didn't bar citizens from voting simply because they had too many points on their license.

Now, it's arguable that people should have ID's, if only for that worst-case scenario of identifying their body, but the state cannot require it for voting if it costs money.

From the case: "(a) Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as to cause invidious discrimination. Pp. 665-667."

A voter ID requirement will do so.

The biggest difficulty in overcoming this law is going to be in a) arguing that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies, b) arguing that the interest of the state in implementing the voter ID requirement is not great enough to supersede the right of all citizens to vote. This will help:

"(b) Fee payments or wealth, like race, creed, or color, are unrelated to the citizen's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Pp. 666-668."

On the other hand, the Right has done its level best to put "strict constructionists" in the court. Strict constructionist merely means "against individual freedoms and for particular social/political agendas." We are talking about people who will argue, straight-faced that warrentless phone-taps are not unConstitutional because there weren't phones when the Fourth Amendment was written thus:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Seriously.

Tragically, I have not gone to law school, so perhaps there's some glaring legal flaw in my equating voter ID requirements to poll taxes, but I think it's arguable. And it's certainly less partisan and whiny than declaring that voter ID requirements are harder on Democrats than Republicans.