The fight over whether states can
demand some sort of identification before allowing voters to cast
ballots has finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices
agreed to hear argument on Arizona's law requiring voters to show proof
of U.S. citizenship.
In the heat of the final days of the U.S. presidential election the case is not drawing much attention. Any argument and decision in the case won't come until long after Election Day.
And the arguments advanced by both sides in the case may seem as dry as unbuttered toast to the average American. The battle probably appeals mainly to political activists or Supreme Court wonks.
But an eventual Supreme Court decision will help shape the voting landscape of the future.
Republicans who have sponsored such laws say they are necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud. Democrats say Republicans have presented no evidence of widespread fraud, and the laws are only a thinly veiled attempt to suppress the vote of minorities, the elderly and the poor -- those least likely to have a driver's license and most likely to vote Democratic.
The arithmetic on the modern Supreme Court favors voter ID laws.
The most recent ruling on the issue, in 2008's Crawford vs. Marion County, the justices ruled 6-3 to approve Indiana's voter ID law -- brushing aside Democratic objections the Republican-led Legislature was trying to suppress the vote. The motives behind the law didn't matter, the majority said, and states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud -- though there was not much evidence of fraud in the Indiana case.
In the heat of the final days of the U.S. presidential election the case is not drawing much attention. Any argument and decision in the case won't come until long after Election Day.
And the arguments advanced by both sides in the case may seem as dry as unbuttered toast to the average American. The battle probably appeals mainly to political activists or Supreme Court wonks.
But an eventual Supreme Court decision will help shape the voting landscape of the future.
Republicans who have sponsored such laws say they are necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud. Democrats say Republicans have presented no evidence of widespread fraud, and the laws are only a thinly veiled attempt to suppress the vote of minorities, the elderly and the poor -- those least likely to have a driver's license and most likely to vote Democratic.
The arithmetic on the modern Supreme Court favors voter ID laws.
The most recent ruling on the issue, in 2008's Crawford vs. Marion County, the justices ruled 6-3 to approve Indiana's voter ID law -- brushing aside Democratic objections the Republican-led Legislature was trying to suppress the vote. The motives behind the law didn't matter, the majority said, and states have a legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud -- though there was not much evidence of fraud in the Indiana case.
No comments:
Post a Comment