June 17, 2013

The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 7-to-2 decision, today struck down an Arizona law that required would-be voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship, generally in the form of a birth certificate, U.S. passport, or driver’s license. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia, noted that a federal law “precludes Arizona from requiring a federal form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself.” The law he referred to, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows people to register to vote using a form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters simply check a box for yes or no. By signing the form, the voter is swearing under the penalty of perjury that he or she is a citizen.

Voting rights advocates claim that state legislators passed laws requiring voters to show identification to discourage minorities from voting. They compared the laws to the Jim Crow laws passed by Southern states in the 1890′s to keep African Americans from voting. In recent years, four states besides Arizona–Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee–have instituted voter ID laws; 12 other states have similar legislation pending.

At the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., justices of the high court meet to interpret the laws that govern the nation. (© Joe Sohm, Photo Researchers)

“Today’s decision sends a strong message that states cannot block their citizens from registering to vote by superimposing burdensome paperwork requirements on top of federal law,” stated Nina Perales in response to the court’s decision. Perales is the vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the court’s ruling. In the dissent, Justice Thomas wrote that the U.S. Constitution “authorizes states to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, which necessarily includes the related power to determine whether those qualifications are satisfied.”

Additional World Book articles:

• Grandfather clause
• Poll tax
• Courts 2012 (a Back in Time article)
• Tempest in a Tea Party (a special report)

October 3, 2012

A Pennsylvania judge ruled yesterday that voters do not need valid photo ID’s to cast a ballot in the upcoming presidential election. The judge, Robert Simpson, did not overturn the law, but rather delayed its implementation on the grounds that the authorities had not done enough to ensure that potential voters had access to the new documents. The judge noted in his ruling that for the November 6 presidential election voters can be asked to produce the newly required photo ID, but those without one can still vote. Judge Simpson had upheld Pennsylvania’s photo ID law in August, but the state supreme court subsequently instructed him to hold further hearings on whether enough had been done to ensure “liberal access” to the picture ID cards.

In a historical photo, African Americans vote in Harlem in 1964. Opponents of voter ID laws in 2012, including civil rights organizations and the Democratic Party, feared that such laws may disenfranchise elderly and minority urban voters. (courtesy AP/Wide World)

Voter ID laws–generally backed by the Republican Party “to prevent electoral fraud”–have triggered a nation-wide debate over voting rights. Opponents of such laws, including civil rights organizations and the Democratic Party, maintain that voter fraud is rare and that such laws make it harder for people to vote. They argue that the elderly and urban minorities often depend on public transportation and, therefore, do not have driver’s licenses. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Georgia, Indiana, and New Hampshire. They have been blocked in Texas and Wisconsin. South Carolina’s voter ID law is currently under court review. Historically, lower voter turnouts have benefited Republican candidates.