Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Rights and Liberties

The Most Important Election Case Since Bush v. Gore?

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted November 20, 2007.


Indiana's voter ID law, facing Supreme Court review, is a bureaucratic nightmare that disenfranchised voters this November. Could it -- and similar laws in several states -- affect the 2008 election?
Advertisement

New voter ID card-related barriers stopped legitimate voters earlier this month in Indiana, where the Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of its voter ID law.

Ray Wardell, a 78-year-old Korean War veteran, could not get a new state voter ID card after his wallet was stolen because Indiana's Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) would not accept his Medicare card -- even though it had accepted that photo ID instead of his birth certificate a year before. Wardell ended up voting with a provisional ballot, but it will not be counted unless the disabled veteran appears before county election officials with further identification.

Mike Westervelt, a Purdue University student and city editor of the campus newspaper, was told by BMV employees they would not accept his New Jersey driver's license as one of three necessary documents to get an Indiana voter ID card -- even though the secretary of state's website listed out-of-state licenses as acceptable. Westervelt said -- and voting rights lawyers affirmed -- that the section of Indiana law cited by BMV to deny a voter ID card contained no prohibitions on out-of-state licenses. He, too, voted provisionally and is trying to resolve issues with his county election board before his vote is counted.

And Kim Tilman, a stay-at-home mother of seven whose husband is a janitor, who does not have her Michigan birth certificate and has run into delays trying to get a copy, said she cannot afford all the involved costs -- which range between $26 and $50 -- to obtain an Indiana voter ID card, despite her hope to vote in the presidential contests.

"These folks are not used to dealing with this," said Karen Celestino Horseman, attorney for the League of Women Voters of Indiana. "People will say this is not the same as a poll tax, or a literacy test. But to go and vote, you need to have resources to find your way through the system."

Since 2000, numerous states have passed or tightened voter ID laws to prevent what Republicans say is widespread voter fraud, or people voting more than once. Critics say there has been little actual voter fraud, few federal prosecutions and convictions, and that the laws' purpose is an attempt by Republicans to shape the electorate by targeting likely Democratic voters.

Indiana's law, which went into effect in 2006, is one of the toughest in the nation. It is being reviewed by the Supreme Court to determine if it poses unconstitutional barriers to voting. According to numerous amicus briefs filed with the Supreme Court, the barriers experienced by Wardell, Westervelt, Tillman and others during the state's recent 2007 local elections are modern descendants of now-illegal Jim Crow election laws.

"The burden for a poor person, an old person, or an old person who is poor, could be quite substantial," the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington public-interest law firm, and Harvard University Law School's Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice wrote. "Indiana's photo ID law falls within this unfortunate American tradition of disenfranchising laws passed under the guise of electoral reform."

The brief notes that poll taxes in Texas before World War I "affected not only the poor in general but also the disproportionately poor black and Latino populations. In 1913, nine years after the $1.75 tax went into effect ($1.50 was imposed by the state, and counties had the option of imposing an additional 25 cents), it had the buying power of $36.36 in today's dollars."

Today, the total cost cited by Tillman of obtaining her birth certificate and the other documentation needed to get a "free" Indiana state voter ID card is on par with Texas' 1913 poll tax. The Constitution's 24th Amendment says the right of citizens to vote "shall not be denied or abridged" for "failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

The voting barriers experienced by Westervelt and Wardell are modern versions of the literacy tests used by Democrats in pre-Civil Rights Era Southern states to prevent blacks from voting, the Indiana League of Women Voter's Horseman said.

"Voting should be the simplest of the fundamental rights that we exercise," she said, saying the hurdles faced by Wardell, Westervelt -- and others cited in the League's brief, including examples from Indiana's 2006 elections -- were a bureaucratic literacy test. "You are talking about burdening someone's constitutional rights."

Other obstacles faced by Indiana voters included elderly people who did not have birth certificates, women whose married names did not match names on their birth certificates, and "hundreds of Amish and Mennonites ... faced with a choice between exercising their religious freedom and their right to vote" because they believe photographs are "graven images," the League's legal brief said.

An estimated 43,000 eligible Indiana voters neither have an Indiana driver's license nor a state photo ID, the Campaign Legal Center and the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute said in its brief.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election theft, indiana, election 2007, voter id card, voter prevention

Steven Rosenfeld is a senior fellow at Alternet.org and co-author of "What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election," with Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman (The New Press, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Rights and Liberties! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Like this will change anything?
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on Nov 20, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Election fraud has been ongoing since 2000. Nothing stopped the vote fraud in Ohio from putting Bush in the White House a second time, and that was a national election.

If you think this case is going to rise up and become a cause celebre in time for the '08 election, wake up. Vote fraud has become normalized. The last two elections were fraudulent, and nothing has been done.

Even if the case is decided, the horse is way out of the barn.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's Been Done to Prohibit Electronic Fraud?
Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian on Nov 20, 2007 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is very concerning. Despite the vast number of inconsistencies and problems in past elections, notably the last presidential election (and the one prior), there still doesn't appear to be a solution in sight. Not only are voters still being disenfranchised and marginalized, as this article reports, but there's still the on-going lack of confidence in the growing use of electronic voting machines.

Although not new video, it's still worth watching (again) this piece based upon a study, conducted by Princeton University, regarding the potential abuse of electronic systems -- in this case the Diebolt brand -- and how software tampering can totally skew the actual voting numbers without any indication -- before (during logic and accuracy testing) or after. Copy and paste to your browser and link to www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZws98jw67g for information.

Does anyone know what the latest news may be regarding this? I haven't seen anything mentioned in the corporate-media for awhile, not that I'd expect to. More importantly, do AlterNet readers know whether your state is currently using electronic voting, or whether your state will be converted to electronic voting prior to next year's election? If so, what mechanism has your local jurisdiction, or state, promised to implement (if any) in order to make sure voter fraud doesn't take place, or if it does, how it will be detected?

Like most important issues, I'm afraid this has been swept under the rug with the hope that voters will forget. Well, I haven't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Your Father's G.O.P.
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 20, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Welcome to Bushworld- part XXXIV

It's nothing more than the new Poll Tax

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not Your Father's G.O.P. Posted by: bobtr900
We've Learned To Live With It
Posted by: dustinblythe on Nov 20, 2007 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Indiana resident, and someone who has worked on a number of elections, I have had some experience with our voter I.D. law. Unfortunately, we have learned to live with the law. As Bruce Springsteen said, "You've got to learn to live with what you can't rise above".

The state Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA) coordinator was very helpful during this past election by suppling me with 3x5 cards that detailed what voters needed to know before they went to vote. However, I had to ask for these cards. How many people knew these were available from the state?

Although a free I.D. is available on election day for voting purposes, in South Bend we recently had a situation where the state dropped a bombshell by announcing their intention to close a license branch on the west side (an area of town that is mainly African-American and older Polish residents who are strong Democrats) and moving it to a new development on the northwest side of town, an area not easily accessible by bus. Only by public outcry and intense lobbying by a state representative and the mayor was a compromise reached that moved the license branch downtown. Still an inconvenience, but near a bus route for those who do not drive. Not nearly as inconvenient as the situation in Lake County where the license branch in heavily Democratic Gary was closed. Now people must go south to Crown Point, not easy if you are elderly or do not drive.

I look forward to a hearing on our voter I.D. law. Our voters deserve a fair resolution that does no harm, something that our current law does not provide.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

UNECESSARILY COMPLICATED
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 20, 2007 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In NJ we have electronic voting with paper trail. The voting part isn't so bad, but the sample ballot I got in the mail which includes directions was enough to scare anyone. I get the feeling that people are being deliberately discouraged from voting.Decide on one form of proof and stop jerking people around. Voting shouldn't take all day. There's no reason for all the confusion. This is more B.S. Has anyone told the candidates how hard it is to vote for them? Maybe we should. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I believe Canada
Posted by: JSquercia on Nov 20, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that Canada votes via paper ballot . They seem to have little problems with that method and it certainly provides a paper trail
We could do the same change voting to a weekend event rather than the first Tuesday in November .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Verifiability and Participation Posted by: Jefferson's Guardian
» RE: I believe Canada Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I believe Canada Posted by: wisegalah
Here In Colorado
Posted by: QQOblivion on Nov 20, 2007 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in Colorado the big issue in regards to so-called "voter fraud" is ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS VOTING! (Gasp!) Never mind that there has not been any cases of this kind of voter fraud in actuality -- and if there has been, it is not at all common-place. So Colorado, in all its wisdom, toughened their voter ID rules. In addition, PROVING your citizenship was made a necessity to get many government handouts and services.
Well, guess what. The cost of enforcing the new rules outweighed the money saved by denying undocumented immigrants money or services.
I know this is a little off-topic, but it angers me that (what seems to me to be) racism has cost our state tax-money, and could be at least partially behind moves in some states to limit the RIGHT to vote for some.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Here In Colorado Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
Bring this piece of garbage down, PHYSICALLY
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Nov 20, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"No plaintiff could identify a singe actual voter who could not or would not vote because of the Voter ID law," Rokita's August 6, 2007 brief said, arguing that state governments -- not the Supreme Court -- were best-suited to regulate their elections. In a follow-up brief on September 17, Rokita cited voter ID court rulings from other states where "plaintiffs simply have failed to prove that the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the right to vote caused by the Voter ID law is significant."

OK, how many of the voters' AMERICAN right to vote who this criminal punk has stolen were repiglicans????
Hmmmmm?? Hmmmmm??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prevent Voter Fraud. CARD EM!
Posted by: Ky Lake Dave on Nov 20, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only one arguement for NOT asking for ID's at the polls and that is to embrace VOTER FRAUD. To ensure acurate and honest elections we must know who is voting. We must make sure the person reperesenting themselves as a voter is truely that voter. Without ID's illegal aliens and convicts can vote using recently deceased voters names. Persons can act as voters they know to be too ill to come to the polls. You have to have an ID to buy a beer. To drive a car. Why not show an ID to vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Worse Than That
Posted by: lmwilker on Nov 20, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When this abomination passed Mitch Daniels (Bush's former Budget & Management guy) closed almost 40 license branches, mainly in rural and minority areas. Voting this time made me feel like I was living in East Germany or something "Show us your documents comrade."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This ID thing won't make a difference in the next election
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Nov 20, 2007 9:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is so unpopular that the Dems will take the next election whomever they nominate. Repugs will drop like flies because of the economy.

"It's the economy, Stupid!" Remember that sign. Middle class voters will finally drop this "values" nonsense and vote for their own economic survival.

Of course, the brain dead Southern NASCAR white voter will stick with the Repugs, so there's some hope for the GOP somewhere.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the Constitution?
Posted by: mom'z the word on Nov 20, 2007 12:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“No plaintiff could identify a singe actual voter who could not or would not vote because of the Voter ID law," As usual this is ass backward legal nonsense. Proving that the Voter ID law does not affect the plaintiffs, who are registered voters, is irrelevant. The issue is how is the plaintiff affected by the Voter ID law and where is the harm? Have the plaintiffs been harmed by the Voter ID law? That is what a lawsuit is all about, righting wrongs and getting restitution.

First in order for there to be case the plaintiff’s lawsuit has to prove their clients were harmed as a result of voter fraud.

So, Who are the defendants in this case? Where are the actual persons convicted of voter fraud?

Is it a crime to not have a picture ID? Apparently it is because those that do not have a picture ID cannot get a voter ID card. So the legal system would have you believe that those who do not have a picture ID are all guilty of voter fraud and therefore are denied a voter ID card. How does a legal system get itself so messed up? That’s easy. Without a doubt politics is the reason. This case is about getting unfair, unjust, undue influence for a particular few at the expense of everyone else. Politics.

For this case to have any merit the plaintiffs must produce evidence of harm caused their clients by persons convicted of voter fraud.

At the bottom of every voter registration card is an oath to tell the truth about who you are and where you live. The voter must sign it. This is a legal, lawful document. In order for there to be a crime of perjury and hence proof of voter fraud, the state must prove the person that signed that card lied. What is happening here is with this new law and others just like it, the State is assuming everyone is guilty of fraud and therefore must prove their innocence before the fact that any crime has been committed. The State is just taking the easy way out, flip flopping justice, if you will.

You want fraud? States have it nailed. Instead of the State or plaintiff required to prove that a crime has been committed, the burden of proof now falls on every citizen to prove they are not guilty of an alleged crime. This law forces every citizen to admit they are guilty of voter fraud and must prove they are not guilty as charged by producing evidence contrary to their state of being, which is innocent until proven guilty. When citizens are required to produce this kind of evidence it also violates the 5th amendment.

To prove voter fraud the State is going to require you to produce documents that prove you did not lie on your voter registration. You would think that the voter registration card that you signed would prove your innocence as well as your guilt. In fact if you are innocent the document will not prove it. The document the state is looking for is the one that proves you guilty of lying and of course because you told the truth there is no such document

Therefore because you cannot produce a non-existent document that proves you are not guilty of the alleged crime, the allegation become facts and you are convicted of voter fraud.

The problem is of course, this is ass backwards and not the way a just system works. So if the system is rotten what are the results going to be? The Constitution id's a voter as a citizen. Do I want non-citizens voting? Hell no. What I do want is for the State to do its job and investigate real cases of fraud without criminalizing the entire population in the process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Voters have YEARS to get it together.
Posted by: gellero on Nov 20, 2007 11:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple bucks, a couple documents. People who claim they can't get that together in a couple of YEARS probably are not interested enough in the process to vote anyway. And that might be better for society anyway. Cigarette and beer money always seems to appear. No one here has any answer how to keep upwards of 20 MILLION illegal aliens from voting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In Denmark voters register at birth.
Posted by: Toke on Nov 21, 2007 11:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not understand your system of voter registration.
In my country citicents are registred shortly after birth with a 10 digit number.
CPR nummer, Central Person Register.
It is used in all public and some private registers.
Shortly before elections an election card (postcard type) is mailed to you. It gives the addres of the voting place you have been assigned to and wicth table to go to.

You get a 4'-6´ long paper with parties and candidates. The voting booth have curtains, a tiny lecthern and a pencil on a string.
You make one ¨X¨
The officials are supplied by the 9 different parties and will keep an eye on each other during election and the counting afterwards.

Our bushloving primeminister have been taking about electronic voting. I dont see why, paper does not break down, and can not be counted wrong without the other parties noticing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm not surprised...
Posted by: bobtr900 on Nov 22, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...this kind of law would originate in Indiana. After all the KKK was very strong in Indiana. It is really another southern state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interim Help
Posted by: westomoon on Nov 23, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, obviously this law sucks. But, while it's on the books, is anybody collecting money to help out these folks with the costs threading the ID labyrinth? I'd be glad to cough up ten bucks to help end-run this new poll tax.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]