Editorial Writer
A new Rasmussen poll out today says 73 percent of Americans surveyed don’t think that requiring a photo ID at the polls constitutes discrimination.
It’s unfortunate that earlier this month the Colorado Senate shot down a photo ID law, because clearly there is public buy-in for such a requirement.
However, as we on the Post editorial board have said several times, how photo ID laws are enacted can make a big difference. This is what we wrote in March:
The idea, however, has taken on partisan dimensions given that this is a presidential election year. We had hoped that policy would supersede politics but unfortunately that wasn’t the case.
A 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by liberal stalwart John Paul Stevens said there was nothing inherently discriminatory about an Indiana law requiring voters show photo IDs.
“The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,” he wrote.
Importantly, as Stevens noted, Indiana provides IDs free of charge to those who cannot afford it and lets those who don’t have a photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and return to the courthouse within 10 days to show identification or otherwise attest to their identity.
As is the case with many controversial ideas, the devil is in the details. A voter ID requirement could be enacted that wouldn’t constitute a barrier to poor and minority voters. It just has to be crafted with that in mind and supported by government committed to inclusion.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/04/16/voter-id-laws-necessarily-discriminate/67888/
It’s unfortunate that earlier this month the Colorado Senate shot down a photo ID law, because clearly there is public buy-in for such a requirement.
However, as we on the Post editorial board have said several times, how photo ID laws are enacted can make a big difference. This is what we wrote in March:
So long — and this is an important caveat — as it allows for a variety of IDs to be used, and accommodations are made to ensure official ID cards are reasonably easy to obtain, there is no reason to not pass this bill.The debate should have focused on how to ensure that the relative handful of voters who might not have a photo ID at the ready could be accommodated by making photo identification relatively easy to obtain with expanded office hours and ensuring the price of obtaining an ID wouldn’t be a barrier.
The idea, however, has taken on partisan dimensions given that this is a presidential election year. We had hoped that policy would supersede politics but unfortunately that wasn’t the case.
A 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision written by liberal stalwart John Paul Stevens said there was nothing inherently discriminatory about an Indiana law requiring voters show photo IDs.
“The application of the statute to the vast majority of Indiana voters is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,” he wrote.
Importantly, as Stevens noted, Indiana provides IDs free of charge to those who cannot afford it and lets those who don’t have a photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and return to the courthouse within 10 days to show identification or otherwise attest to their identity.
As is the case with many controversial ideas, the devil is in the details. A voter ID requirement could be enacted that wouldn’t constitute a barrier to poor and minority voters. It just has to be crafted with that in mind and supported by government committed to inclusion.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/04/16/voter-id-laws-necessarily-discriminate/67888/
No comments:
Post a Comment