Home › Opinion › Opinion
Moraga: Barrier at the ballot box
Indiana ID law targets the poor and minorities
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionBack in the Jim Crow era of the Deep South, many would-be voters were prevented from exercising their rights because they had to pass a literacy test.
The tests were enacted to prevent black residents from voting for the candidates of their choice. Because of the discriminatory nature of the tests, the whole system was tossed out after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The act required states to ensure that the voting process was fair and open to all Americans. No longer would people have to prove that they could read or write just so they could vote. Over the years, other discriminatory measures such as poll taxes have similarly been struck down as unconstitutional because they put an unfair burden on the poor.
Equal access to the ballot box was once again the issue when the U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments about the constitutionality of a 2005 Indiana law that requires all voters to show their driver's license, passport or other forms of government-issued photo identification in order to gain the right to cast their ballots.
Those who do not have an approved photo ID can cast a provisional ballot, but must present government-approved proof to the appropriate office within 10 days.
No, Indiana is not the Chicago during the era of outright election fraud, when the voting rolls routinely included ballots supposedly cast by those buried in the local cemetery. No, Indiana is not the place where you would likely hear the slogan "Vote early, vote often."
In fact, while Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said there have been other instances of election fraud in the state, he confessed that there hasn't been one confirmed incident of voter-impersonation fraud.
But just in case one person decides to defraud the voting process, cast his ballot using a false name and risk going to jail, state officials decided to make all residents of Indiana open up their wallets and purses and provide their picture ID to local voting officials.
Talk about closing the barn door before you even put the horse in the barn.
While the new law is aimed ostensibly against anyone with a criminal bent, opponents of the law say it is really targeted against the poor, minorities and others who would most likely vote for Democratic candidates.
"Let's not beat around the bush: The Indiana voter ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election day turnout by certain folks thought to skew Democratic," Judge Terence Evans was quoted in the Fort Wayne-based Journal Gazette. Evans, who was appointed by a Democratic president, was on the losing end of an appeals court vote, with the Republican-appointed judges supporting the law.
The law has drawn fire from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Indiana League of Women Voters and other groups.
The league cited an example of a low-income mother of seven children who had to choose between paying her household bills or spending $50 to get her out-of-state birth certificate in order to get a free voter ID card from Indiana.
"I believe that I should be able to have a voice to say who I would like governing the state that I live in," said Kim Tillman of Indianapolis. "But, unfortunately, because of the state laws, I'm unable to do that."
The league said besides minorities and the poor, the law discriminates against the elderly who do not have a driver's license and those whose religions forbid pictures. The homeless will also be hard-pressed to produce a photo ID.
"Should the presumption be that the voter is dishonest and not entitled to have the right to vote unless they overcome some proof burden to show that they are actually entitled to vote? Or should the presumption be that people who seek to register can vote unless somebody has evidence to show that they're not entitled to do so?" asked Deborah Goldberg, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, in the Journal Gazette.
While 24 other states have enacted similar laws, Indiana's is the strictest in the nation and other states could enact similar laws if Indiana's law is upheld by the Supreme Court. With 2008 shaping up to be a contentious election year, the case before the court will be closely watched and a final ruling could come before the November presidential election.
The stakes are high given the closeness of the recent presidential elections.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 21 million Americans who do not have a driver's license, 21 million Americans who may have to scramble to get some form of government-approved photo ID if they plan to exercise their right to vote in the next presidential election.
— Frank Moraga is The Star's director of diversity and editor of Mi Estrella, The Star's bilingual weekly newspaper. E-mail him at fmoraga@VenturaCountyStar.com.
Posted by Nosmo_King on January 11, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So the Courts have said; you can be stupid and illiterate, you just have to be who you say you are. I see no problem with the second part of that.
Posted by Jacksprat on January 11, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Arizona has a law very simular. It won in a court fight, however the law allows you to use some other means to prove who you are and also vote provisional. But what happened the first election after the law was passed, there was maybe one or two people who did not get to vote because of the law. So it all comes down again to those chicken little that see the sky falling and tell us before some thing happens all of the bad thing that it will cause. Why don't they shut up and wait and see the effect? The sky may not be falling after all
Posted by cassandra on January 11, 2008 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We waited to see with recount-proof electronic voting machines despite warnings from hackers, computer experts and activists like Bev Harris. We waited to see when it was apparent too few voting machines were going to be available in Cleveland's minority areas. We got another stolen election.
That's why we shouldn't wait to see on this one.
Posted by msavalla on January 11, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In order to vote one must be a citizen, resident of the Country, State, city or county in which one is voting. What other reason does one need to require ID to vote. Perfection is a goal, reality and practicality are roads to that goal. What reason would one have to not require proof of ID? The one in a thousand example this guy gives is a joke.
Posted by nannyfo1 on January 11, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If Moraga was a real leader he would be finding ways to help people get ID's rather than writing columns explaining why they shouldn't have to have one. Let's keep in mind that the single mom with seven kids engaged in the decisions and behavior that resulted in that situation. Sometimes there are consequences for our decisions.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on January 11, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is little doubt that this is a brazen attempt to limit access to vote, moreover one with distinctly partisan tones as Mr. Moraga and Judge Evans state.
One comment notes that you must have ID to register to vote, honestly its been so long since I registered I don't remember having to show "proof of ID", but it that's true, are there two standards here. One to register, another to vote? That doesn't sound right.
One other thing, photo proof of ID, while an important tool these days, are subject to fakery or fraud in procuring them. They won't stop terrorists or undocumented immigrants.
Mr Moraga by the way is not exactly a "leader" in the strict sense, he is an Editor and reporter for the VC Star. Mr. Moraga and myself at this point are the only commentators who aren't hiding behind a "fake" identity here.
Posted by cassandra on January 11, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Your comments are reasonable biases of middle class people. Why not show a picture ID?
What if you don't drive, however, because you can't afford the cost of a car? Lots of people can't. Why would they have a driver's license? Folks like that are not likely to vote Republican, are they?
As for a passport, I haven't had one of those since 1963 and it was issued in a former name when I was married to someone else. It would cost a bundle to get a current passport. If I don't travel because I can't afford to, why would I have one?
All of the photo IDs in some way relate to socio-economic status. But the folks at the bottom are the ones most in need of making their interests felt at the ballot box. That's why this is a discriminatory law.
As for waiting for large numbers of people turned away, how about merely discouraging them a priori so they don't show up?
That'll keep us rif raff out.
Posted by sslocal on January 11, 2008 at 7:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have never heard it explained that way before cassandra. Interesting.
Posted by Freedom1 on January 12, 2008 at 5:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Moranga, as an "editor and reporter for the VC Star" has personal biases based on his beliefs that all rules and regulations in this country are automatically detrimental to minorities. Utter nonsense. Procurring a valid photo ID in this country is something that all of us have done for generations. Don't drive - get a picture ID from the DMV. Don't have a certified copy of your birth certificate - work the state and Federal agencies to use an alternative just like my Dad did when he legally immigrated to this country as an orphan in the late 1800's. Can't get to the DMV - use the FREE transportation services that are available to ALL residents or ask one of your kids to help out. This isn't "rocket science" nor is it aimed at eliminating the vote of minorities and the disabled. There was once a time in this country when honesty was simply expected, now it has to be controlled by implementation of laws. So sad!
Posted by Face on January 12, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Photo IDS, you do not need a license, you can go down and get a California State ID from the DMV. Photo IDs do not reflect economic class since this ID can be had for I think $10 (not as expensive as a license for sure). Requiring proof of residency is not a crime, but a deterrent to voter fraud. I would think everybody wants clean fair elections. Allowing someone to walk up and vote without knowing who they are... fraudulence.
Posted by Twslv05 on January 13, 2008 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Moraga as usual looks at this issue only through race tinted glasses rather than the actual facts.
California has an undoubtably high number of illegal voters participating in its elections because of its lax standards for obtainig a drivers licience, in fact many states don't reconize California drivers liciences as a true form of ID for that reason.
Califorinia does not require actual proof of citizenship to obtain a drivers licience but accepts a drivers liciense as a valid form of ID to register to vote.
Its not to hard to understand why the US Government as well as many states want to fix this problem as well as Mr. Moragas reasons for wanting the status quoe.
Hopefully the new laws that went onto effect January 1st will correct many of California's failures to uphold the law.
Posted by Twslv05 on January 13, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra
I want to remind you as well as anyone over the age 18 who resides in California that the law REQUIRES ANYONE 18 and over to have a valid form of ID in posession while in public.
As far as the costs associated with paying for such an important document (Approx $3.00 a year} it is not an issue worth mentioning.
Posted by Face on January 13, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not only do they want illegals to vote, but they want to bus them from polling place to polling place. Did you know Hillary won NH because she bussed in people from out of state? Caveat, it is actually legal to do so in NH where anyone can vote who claims they will be moving to NH in the future. Requiring a valid state ID to ensure against voter fraud is not racist or disenfranchising. To not do so invites fraud of the highest order.
Posted by BeaHappi on January 14, 2008 at 3:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"But the folks at the bottom are the ones most in need of making their interests felt at the ballot box. That's why this is a discriminatory law."
I'm curious to know if the "folks at the bottom" have a good record in regards to voting. It makes sense that they do really need to get out there and vote but do they?
And the comment about Hillary winning NH because she bussed people in from out of state...I'm sorry but don't you have to be registered BEFORE you can vote? I just don't see how this is possible but perhaps I'm just not up on this. I know that there is a cut-off date for our registration in regards to voting dates...it seems that it would be the same in other states too.
If there is a will, there is a way. Having a state ID card just seems to be like a good idea no matter who you are or what your situation is. And those who truly want to vote will find a way instead of finding excuses as to why they can't vote.
Posted by joanns3angels on January 14, 2008 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
jw100 eat crow
Posted by Twslv05 on January 15, 2008 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
BeaHappi Being poor does not mean this law is discriminitory in any way nor do the poor need to have thier voice heard at the ballot box anymore than anyone else.
Have you ever heard of the phrase one person one vote? or would you prefer vote early and often as the Democrats in Illinois did in 1960?
These laws are meant to prevent from that sort of voter fraud from happening again.
The Democrat Party has gone out of its way to patronize the poor for no other reason other than power, while in truth they show thier true elitest values by not wanting laws demanding personal responsibilty at the ballot box or anywhere else for that matter.
I as most Americans have been poor at one time and have always made sure my vote counts so my voice can be heard too,its not a poverty issue at all and if those who don't value thier vote of any social demogrgarphics shouldn't vote period!
We all should Demand responsibility at the ballot box to prevent those who are not entitled to vote by proving who we are so voter fraud is not a post election excuse to claim otherwise.
We are all required to have in posession a valid form of ID when we are over the age 18 and must show these forms of ID when cashing a check or many many other reasons, so enough excuses for the so called poor.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.