Supreme Court tilts election, big time

This week’s Supreme Court decision allowing election laws that greatly favor the GOP to stand received little attention, considering the considerable and partisan effect it will have on the upcoming election. Because the court dealt only with the law of one state (Indiana), one might assume that whatever damage is to be inflicted on the Democrats would be limited. Actually, 23 other states have already enacted similar laws, and, now that the law has been given the green light by the court, others may well follow.

Basically, the Indiana law requires that, before a voter can cast her ballot, she must present an unexpired photo ID issued either by Indiana or the federal government (in most cases, this means a current driver’s license or a passport). This may seem to be of limited importance; after all, the same is required to fly. However, it turns out that about 11 percent of Americans have no such identification—and, it turns out that most of these Americans are poor, members of minorities, and tend to vote for Democrats. Given that elections are often decided by less than 5 percent of the vote, this court decision could go a very long way to make the next President of the U.S. a Republican, and to cut deeply into the Democratic leads in Congress.

But, one may ask, aren’t such laws politically neutral? All these laws require is that each voter present a state issued form of ID, photo included. In fact, these laws are as discriminatory against the elderly, the poor, the less educated and minorities as the literacy tests and poll taxes of the past. These social groups contain most of the voters who have no such ID cards and who often do not have the means to acquire them.

A case may give one a feel for the effects of these ID laws. An elderly women living in a nursing home in Indiana used to make her way with great difficulty every election day to the ground floor of her building in order to vote. Asked for an ID, which she did not have, she got a friend to drive her to the local department of motor vehicles to get a non-driver license. After standing in line for considerable time with growing difficulties, she was sent home to find the needed documentations proving that she is a lawful resident of Indiana. She never returned and will be unable to vote this year.   

Those who favor voter ID laws, for instance the Wall Street Journal, argue that IDs are needed to prevent electoral fraud. However, strong data show that there is next to no voter fraud due to misidentification--and fairly wide abuse due to ballot box stuffing, voter machine manipulation, registration list manipulation and absentee balloting.  (Indeed, in its ‘lead opinion’ on the Indiana Law case, written by Justice Stevens and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, the Supreme court recognized that there was “no evidence” of the type of voter fraud the Indiana law was ostensibly devised to detect and deter.)

Judge Richard Posner, who wrote in the majority opinion upholding the Indiana law for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, affirmed that "no doubt most people who don't have photo ID are low on the economic ladder and thus, if they do vote, are more likely to vote for Democratic than Republican candidates" and that "the new law injures the Democratic Party by compelling the party to devote resources to getting to the polls those of its supporters who would otherwise be discouraged by the new law from bothering to vote." Now the right-leaning Supreme Court has followed suit, finding these ID laws to be constitutional.

The Democrats could mount a huge drive to ensure that all voters will obtain the required ID. So far there are few signs that they understand the scope of the challenge and are mounting the needed massive  drive. But, even if they do, large amounts of resources and volunteers that could otherwise have been used to promote Democratic candidates will instead be dedicated to getting voters IDs. 

Whatever party one belongs to, or which candidate one favors, one should favor a Supreme Court that is political neutral, one that does not play favors, does not tilt the elections one way or the other. Vote to ensure a president who will appoint fair judges to the highest court in the land. And if need be, get an ID!