Supreme Court OKs Voter IDs

Would an ID requirement keep you away from the polling place?

If it doesn't already, your state may impose an ID requirement, and until it’s proven otherwise, the Supreme Court says it’s legal.

The Court decided 6-3 that there was not enough evidence to overturn Indiana’s voter identification law, saying the challengers couldn’t prove that the regulation placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The decision pokes holes in the political arguments for and against voter ID laws. Democrats assert that the laws are burdensome to the elderly, poor, and disabled, while Republicans say that IDs are necessary to prevent fraud. The Court found that neither argument -- neither voter disenfranchisement nor fraud -- is backed up by much evidence.

While the ruling reinforces states’ rights, the case also highlights the problematic nature of state-by-state regulations for national elections and the different blocks of voters that form the base of the two political parties.

Voter IDs

Indiana’s voter identification law is one of the strictest in the nation. It requires voters to display a current picture ID issued by the state or federal government, such as a driver’s license or a passport. Not a student ID. Voters who don’t drive may get a state photo ID from the department of motor vehicles, but obtaining that requires an original birth certificate or a passport.

Six other states, including Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Lousiana, Michigan, and South Dakota, also require photo ID at the polling place, and similar bills are pending in about two dozen other states.

The Constitution, voting, and the Court

Indiana is able to require a photo ID because the Constitution allows each state to decide its own voting laws: “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators.” (Article I, Section 4)

But the framers of the Constitution did not intend senators to be elected by ordinary voters. Instead, the framers wanted state legislatures to elect senators so that they would be able to concentrate on governing, without pressure from the populace. The model for the original selection process was the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention.

Except in Senate elections, which have been determined by a direct vote since 1913, the Constitution allows Congress to trump the states. The application of this provision has resulted in different voting laws in each state. In addition, national and state elections are often held simultaneously, further discouraging a uniform federal law from emerging.

Yet the issue of easy voter access vs. voter fraud is a national one, which is why the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to rule in the matter. But even the Court is not immune to the politcs of the situation, since its members are appointed by the Executive, or, the President.

President Bush’s appointments – Roberts and Alito – have changed the Court, a legacy that will last far beyond his presidency. All but two of the justices are Republican appointees.

The decision

This lack of evidence on both sides prevented a majority decision, but revealed sharp disagreement on the meaning and effects of an ID requirement for voting.

The “lead opinion,” written by Justice John Paul Stevens, says that the state has the right to impose the law since the “risk of voter fraud” is “real.” Joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, he cites a lack of “concrete evidence of the burden imposed on voters who now lack photo identification.” 

Writing a dissenting opinion, Justice David H. Souter starkly disagrees with both the ruling itself and the analysis behind it. He calls showing voter ID at the polling place a “serious” burden that the state has failed to justify: “[T]he onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer also dissented, saying that even a slight burden on a limited number of people must be justified by the state because of the little evidence of in-person voter impersonation in Indiana or nationwide. Souter also recognized the historical trend of creating voter laws to prevent some groups from going to the polls: “The interest in combating voter fraud has too often served as a cover for unnecessarily restrictive electoral rules.”

The arguments within the decision are particularly noteworthy because the question of a national ID requirement is looming. Concerns about illegal immigration and homeland security are likely to dominate the debate, but broader questions about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship will also be at stake.

Would you favor a national primary with national voting standards and national ID? Or any of these?

Tell your representatives what you think!

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• To explore our archive of past Voting Rights Issue updates, click here.

We offer all our services free of charge without memberships or subscriptions. To help us maintain this work - not just in election years but as a continuing part of women’s lives - please make a tax deductible donation, click here.

return to top