For the last half century, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court steadily have undone voting impediments created by local and state governments. That effort came to a screeching halt on April 28, however, when the high court upheld Indiana's onerous law requiring voters to present a state-issued photo identification card, with an expiration date, on election day.
This government ID scheme works against older voters who no longer drive or travel (as we saw with the old nuns denied the ballot in the recent Indiana primary), students in college, voters with disabilities, minority and poor people, new voters who recently became citizens, and homeless individuals. No matter whether people have voted in their precinct, are known to election staff, or have other ID, they still must get a driver’s license or specified government ID.
Texas Republicans lead by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and state Rep. Leo Berman (Tyler) want to impose the same burden on Texas voters. Surely, although they would deny it, their real agenda is to dilute the electoral strength of individuals, who tend to vote Democratic. There is no other viable explanation.
Despite innuendo, there actually is no proof of any widespread fraud in Texas, at least not the kind that government ID would take care of. In fact, there are far greater possibilities of fraud or malfunction with Texas’ paperless electronic voting machines. Berman, however, chair of the House Elections Committee, isn’t concerned about that.
Texas originally started out enabling people to vote, rather than impeding them. The delegates to the 1875 convention, which gave us our current constitution, lead by Grangers and progressive Republicans, rejected a variety of electoral impediments: poll taxes, literacy tests, property taxes, and multi-member legislative and judicial districts.
The delegates rejected schemes to limit suffrage because they understood that denying the franchise to African Americans inevitably would deprive them of the political power they needed to break state government's unholy alliance with big business, railroads, and monopolies.
The 1876 Constitution reflects a populist revolt that gave Texas some of the broadest suffrage rights in the nation. For example, until 1919 non-citizens could vote if they met the residency requirement and declared their intent to become citizens.
Anti-voting laws came into Texas in the early 1900s to disenfranchise African Americans who voted in significantly higher proportions than did the whites. In fact, African American voter turn out reached 80 percent in some areas. The poll tax, the white primary, and multi-member districts all became law. Even those tricks didn’t work totally, and the KKK used a violent campaign to suppress black voter turnout. Similar tactics kept down Mexican American voting. This all lead Texas further down the path of racism and segregation.
The Voting Rights Act and Supreme Court decisions undid much of that history, and minority electoral strength increased dramatically. The Republican Party’s reaction since has been to send “poll watchers” to minority precincts around the state to depress voter turnout through intimidation, even though there was no recent election malfeasance history. Dewhurst and Berman want to add yet another hurdle to people voting.
Voting is a fundamental right, the cornerstone of our democracy. Our legal system should break down barriers to the polling place, not build them up. Let’s help the Legislature remember this when it meets in 2009.
Harrington is director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, a nonprofit foundation that promotes civil rights and economic and racial justice throughout Texas.














Marty
May 9, 2008
What seems REALLY WEIRD is that
each city, each state has totally different ways of voting !
Punch cards, no punch cards.
OK, lets go back to the punch cards. NO, lets change it
to paper slips. NO, lets use this electronic machine. No,
lets change it to this brand. No, lets go back to the lever machine with the curtain.
And each city and state is doing this !!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
Now, add in ID's. NO ID's. Some ID's. Cant use old ID's that have "expired".
Just because the "date" expired it doesn't mean that the person morphed into someone else or got any younger.
Go vote in a primary, then go BACK at night to take a head count.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh !
This is terrible.
With many variables I don't see how anyone is really elected by the people who vote.
Everything is wrong. Just plain wrong.
Might as well just flip a coin.
And now, "Super Deligates" and might as well also have
Super Duper Deligates.
Chas
May 9, 2008
Colllege Students, old nuns, disabled, homeless, elderly, new citizens all have one thing in common: entitlements of some sort. They can's cash their government checks, obtain food stamps, enroll in school without a valid ID. So why not for voting, the most precious thing we have.
David K
May 9, 2008
I hate to burst your bubble, but there is nothing in the constitution giving citizens "the right" to vote for anything. Here is a list of google results explaining what is, and is not in the the constitution.
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=gmail&q=right%20to%20vote%20constitution
I also wonder why the author implied that there is no evidence to support the claim that there is voter fraud via impersonation, but claims wide spread fraud with electronic voting machines and offers not one example.
Am I to suppose that since author provides no proof of either claim that they are in fact both false? I need some kind of evidence here to support his claim that there is a problem with the electronic voting machine in Texas. I need that evidence the same way he needs evidence of people impersonating voters in order to believe there is a problem.
Also, how many Americans are guaranteed a right to a free mailbox in order to recieve their voter registration cards? Seems like my mailbox cost me about $200,000 (minus closing costs). I wonder if that could be considered a poll tax as well.
I also found the list of people the author thinks can't obtain, or don't have an ID to be lacking logic. He either doesn't understand the daily lives of these groups, or he's just making things up as he goes.
Here's who the author mentioned and my thoughts
"older voters who no longer drive or travel" - Older voters still need an ID to bank. They also need one to claim medicare benefits and other government supplementation. You are talking about an extremely tiny portion of the population that doesn't already have an ID, which would be easy to rectify with a little work.
"students in college" - This seems a bit odd seeing as how each student has to produce a picture ID to attend college these days. College students are also issued IDs from their respective campuses. I know for a fact that high school students here in El Paso are given a picture ID. Could these be acceptable by the govenrment since in most cases they are issued by the government? What about people of college age, but not in college? This an odd group to single out.
"voters with disabilities" - Last time I checked there was no law against having a photo ID if you are missing a leg. In fact, this segment of the population is often seeking medical treatment - an industry that requires photo IDs.
"minority and poor people" - Is there some reason a minority would not be able to get an ID? Being a minority here in El Paso myself I have never found obtaining an ID to be a problem. Poor people are eligible for a reduced price ID. In order to claim and recieve welfare benefits you have to prove who you are and most do it with a photo ID.
"new voters who recently became citizens" - New citizens were given a photo ID when they got their "green card" or "premanent resident card." If anything, new citizens are equiped with a load of documentation indicating who they are seeing as how that's the most important part of the whole process! You can't become a new citizen without the government handing you a photo ID at some point in the process.
"homeless individuals" - If they are homeless they're probably not receiving their voter registration card given that they don't have a home with a mailbox. The homeless men that used to buy me beer in high school had an ID and a mailbox - they needed the ID to apply for their social security and disability benefits. They also needed a mailbox in order to receive those checks.
I'm not seeing a good argument here showing me that many people in society can not get a photo ID.
The author does not give enough support to his arguments for me to buy them. How does one make an argument when none of his claims turn out to be true?
lisaT
May 11, 2008
Instead of purging the Voters Rolls at regular time periods of people who haven't voted in say the last 5 years The El Paso Voter Rolls are full of people who are either dead or no longer live in town. It's very easy to get these Voter cards and use them to vote more than once. Therefore the requirement to produce ID when voting is a good thing as would proof of citizenship.
Pinche Gringo
May 11, 2008
nonsense.
a legal photo I.D. is simple, plain common sense for voting. Your argument only shows a fear of losing party votes from lazy apathetic citizens.... (or non-citizens??)
ELPJOSE
May 11, 2008
Why is asking for a photo ID a form of discrimination? We need a photo id to to most of the basic fucntions in our society i.e. cash a check, travel on airlines, use a credit card, to return from travel to mexico or carribean. It seems that a vast majority of our "legal" citizens have either a driver license/offcial state id or passport. While yes voting is a cornerstone of our democratic society so is ensuring that it is done by those citizen that only have this right and privlege. The only way to ensure this is to ask for a proper photo id.
DJM
May 12, 2008
I support some kind of proof that you are eligible to vote to get registered to vote; but not necessarily to cast a vote at the polls. Once registered you should be allowed to cast a vote but the poll judges should be able to note that you appeared on the registerered rolls but failed to produce an ID at the poll. This would give candidates (or election offices, or Dept of Justice) an opportunity to check the validity of the voter's ID.
I have spent 30 years helping people apply for gov't services only to be delayed by lack of paperwork to prove who they are.
At 57, I am highly aware of my part in complaining about the "system" lacking care for the consumer that I am now suffering from "over-wrap" of everything from popsicles to pills.
I also complained that non-poor people were getting services intended for poor people; so now, tons of proof are required to prove your are poor.
Then I complained that people outside of the County were getting services intended for El paso county residents; so now we demand tons of proof that we live in El Paso.
Age? Education? Work Experience? Driving experience? you name it; you have to prove it with some type of proof. So I it is a wonder, that there exist a person (120 years old or 1 month old) that can not document who they are? So what is the problem with the ID requirement, to vote?
When you lose an election because Republicans are casting votes in the Democratic primaries so they can get a weaker Demo candidate to run against their weak Rep candidate, then requiring an voter registration card or ID would be good.
If you want to have every vote counted "for you", then you are less concerned about your voters having IDs.
Notwithstanding, no one should be denied the right to vote for lack of an ID; as said, let him/her vote; check her credentials later (if necessary).