This Saturday, the supreme court ruled that it would permit Texas to enforce its new voter ID law that could prevent up to 5% of the states registered voters from casting a ballot. The court's 6-3 ruling, which failed to rule on the constitutionality of the law, allows Texas to begin enforcing this controversial law as early as the upcoming November elections. This all became possible a year ago after Chief Justice John Roberts nullified the part of the famous Voting Rights Act of 1965 that had prevented Southern states with a history of racial discrimination
from changing their voting rules in a way that would make it harder for
blacks or Latinos to cast a ballot, citing it as an "affront to states' equal sovereignty." Judge Nelva Ramos, in an October 9 ruling in a Texas Court, stated that , "While this is not an absolute barrier to voting, it could and likely
will stand in way of tens of thousands of fully qualified voters."
It will be interesting to see if this ruling will pave the way for other states to enforce Voter ID laws like those in Texas, which many consider to be a violation of the 24th Amendment which abolished poll taxes. In the mean time, the Supreme Court has taken its stance and shown that it will do little to protect the right to vote in the courts.
-Are voter ID laws a violation of the 24th Amendment?
-Do you agree with the Court's decision in the Texas Voter ID law case?
-Should the Supreme Court do more to protect the right to vote?
3 comments:
I think the Supreme Court could have reasonably argued either way. One contention is that providing identification is not equivalent to placing a tax on voting, but on the other hand, it does cost money to obtain photo ID from the government. However, what's really disappointing to me is the fact that the Supreme Court did not choose the option that upholds greater democracy. The purpose of the 24th amendment was to ensure that politicians wouldn't use rules and requirements to restrict the minority vote—an important goal. But with these voter ID laws, the politicians can do just that. The NAACP stated that 25% of eligible black voters nationwide lack government-issued photo ID—these laws would affect minority turnout much more than that of white voters. It seems to me that the Texas government is insisting on voter ID laws for mostly politically motivated purposes (conservative-dominated government, black and Latin@ voters usually are liberal). They claim these laws will protect the integrity of elections, but that argument seems shaky—was there ever a huge problem with voter fraud in the first place? There's a lot of debate on the topic, but my belief is no.
Of course there is the argument that loose voter registration laws enable voter fraud, but I definitely agree with Valerie that a voter ID law like this effectively disenfranchises select groups of voters. The voter fraud argument is fishy considering the nature in which these laws are designed to target specific demographics. Some ID laws, for example, require a government-issued picture ID, which means that an old person without a driver's license can't even use their AARP card.
Sure, for us suburban youth getting a driver's license seems easy, but what about people who take the subway every day? Is it fair to expect them to take days off work to obtain an ID and jump through various other hoops in order to register to vote? I don't think so.
I agree with both Valerie and Murray and think that it is fairly clear that there are political motives behind this particular (and most if not all) Voter ID law. In a large state such as Texas, many registered voters may need to travel multiple hours in order to obtain an ID. I certainly agree with Valerie that the most disappointing part of this law is that it was passed through and upheld by the Supreme Court. I'm sure that this will not be the last court case in regards to voter ID laws, but for now it appears as if we will have to wait for another state to attempt to pass such a law and test the Supreme Court once again.
Post a Comment