The Lafayette Journal & Courier has a reasonable editorial on the Voter ID law recently struck down as unconstitutional because it treated absentee voters more leniently than in-person voters. The J&C suggests that legislators simply go back and treat absentee voters the same as in-person voters.
Rather than appeal Thursday’s ruling, it might be a better route for lawmakers to close the loopholes and adopt a new law that applies uniformly to all voters.
Given that many of the state’s problems with voter fraud have occurred with absentee ballots, it seems reasonable that the photo ID rule apply to them, or that some other method of verifying identification be adopted.
Reasonable as it is, it starts with the flawed premise that this was ever fundamentally about combatting voter fraud. Consider that the law’s proponents rejected proposed amendments to make this law apply to absentee voters and could not point to any real life instances of fraud that this would have stopped, certainly not any that had any particular impact on an actual election.
These items don’t fit into the narrative where Voter ID proponents are crusading to protect the integrity of the electoral system from the scourge of fraud. In my misspent youth, I experimented with a little Ayn Rand. I’ve discarded most of that rubbish but one quote that stuck with me, overblown as it is, was this: “Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.” O.k., so that’s just an overbearing way of saying that when things don’t fit together, you ought to check your premises.
The facts fit together a lot better if you discard the premise that voter fraud was the purpose of the Voter ID law and replace it with the premise that one political party, temporarily ascendant, saw fit to pass a law that would shave a percentage point or two off the other side’s voters. The Republicans made a calculation that the voters who would: a) vote in person; and b) not have identification would skew toward the Democrats. That calculus changes if you apply the ID requirement to those who vote absentee. Therefore, the absentee voters were not subjected to the same level of scrutiny.
If the Journal & Courier’s premise is correct, I would expect simple legislation to correct the disparate treatment. If my premise is correct, I would expect a trip to the Supreme Court and a lot of public gnashing of teeth that never seems to address why absentee voters should be subjected to less scrutiny than in-person voters.
You make two assumptions in your case that I would consider invalid.
The first is definitely invalid. The second is debatable.
First you assume rationality on the part of politicians. Politicians of both parties tend to get stuck in a mindset. I would expect a trip to the Supreme Court even if the J&C is correct. Politicians of all colors would rather pretend that a flaw does not exist until forced to do so. Take Washington Democrats ignoring the corruption of ACORN until this past week as a prime example.
Second, you assume that the appeals court decided correctly, despite the U.S. Supreme Court ruling differently when considering the case against the much tougher U.S. Equal Protection Clause.
Despite the 3-0 decision, I see no basis for such an assumption. In-person voters are not subjected to any more scrutiny than absentee voters. If the in-person voter can not present Voter ID, s/he is granted a provisional ballot. The provisional ballot is barely different than the absentee ballot.
In fact, requiring the absentee voter to present ID puts undue burden on the absentee voter and the law would then be subject to equal protection consideration.
Would the absentee voter be required to go to a special place to send in his/her ballot and present ID? Would the absentee voter be required to send his/her ID with the ballot? Would the absentee voter be required to send a photocopy of his/her ID? The first turns absentee voting into “early voting” and presents a whole new host of problems. The second and third are clearly ridiculous, and fail to prove the person’s identity in any case.
The law, as written, is as fair and reasonable as it can be. I would be extremely surprised if the Indiana Supreme Court follows the lead of the appellate court and not the U.S. Supreme Court.
The provisional ballot is barely different than the absentee ballot.
are you serious? a voter who casts a provisional ballot must then go to the county clerk’s office within 10 days and show ID, or else the vote won’t be counted. that’s hardly the same as an absentee ballot.
as for the idea that this ruling was wrong because the scotus decision was based on a stricter standard… from skimming the actual scotus decision, i don’t see where they ruled on the specific question of whether it’s fair not to require ID of absentee voters. (i could be misreading the ruling.)
Chris, I toss around charges of political irrationality all the time, and I think I can safely say: a) it’s facile; b) it’s fun; and c) it’s frequently to the point. And I am utterly mystified as to why you think it applies here. (Aside from the opportunity for a gratuituous ACORN reference, I mean.)
It’s just silly. Even if it weren’t reasonable to assume a bill which went through two committees and their study groups, both houses of the General Assembly, and was vetted by the Governor’s lawyers before he signed it–all the while being criticized for the massive absentee-voter loophole, by the way–might at least say what they intended it to mean, what would we do about it? Discuss it irrationally? Play tennis with the net down? Pass out gold stars for Effort?
I’ll agree there’s a sort of Snopes-worthy undercurrent of irrationality at work here, the conviction that one’s political opponents are, at all times, a sort of combination of SPECTRE and cabal of neighborhood toughs so determined to thwart the Good and the True that they will fix a game of cards played for fun, or create an in-person voting fraud scheme which would require a Normandy invasion of spurious voters, and be visible from Space, in order to have any chance of affecting the typical election. Such irrational beliefs should not blind us to the darker strain of the same thing, nor the cynical manipulation of both by politicians–rational or no–who stand to profit from them.
Seems like an odd context for an ad hominem attack on Ayn Rand. I think in this case you could paraphrase her writing without the hyperbole. If you expect people to take your post seriously, you need to rise above the playground.
M