JUST FOR the record, in a probably vain attempt to counteract the partisan political spin being put on Federal Judge Harold L. Murphy’s ruling in the challenge to the state requiring photo IDs for in-person voting, he did not find the law to be “constitutional.” He found it to not have been proven to be unconstitutional, which is a big difference.
Indeed, just like the Georgia Supreme Court before him in a similar challenge, he ruled that the specific complainants claiming a grievance could not show that they have been, or even could be, harmed. At best, he seemed to indicate, the new hurdle to the polling places amounted to an inconvenience or annoyance.
The reality, of course, is that the photo ID thing is unconstitutional in that it could be applied in such a manner as to deny citizens their right to vote. It hasn’t been yet, but then there hasn’t been an election held since its passage in which massive numbers of voters might bump up against it.
Even then, as Murphy also spelled out in a very long and detailed ruling from his Rome courtroom, such a denial probably couldn’t happen because the voting procedure, particular as it applies to absentee voting, has so many gaping holes in it that anyone seriously intent about voting fraudulently without an ID would not have much difficulty doing so.
ALL THIS DOESN’T erase the underlying impression that the law is unconstitutional. It is, and remains such a threat no matter how many judges declare it has not yet been misused. It could be, and that’s all that really matters.
The New York Times perhaps summed up the case best: “The two sides have had difficulty proving their cases. In hearings, the individual plaintiffs acknowledged that they had the means to obtain photo identification. ... On the other hand, the state could not produce any evidence of in-person voter fraud.”
In other words, to this point the state’s law has done nothing and addresses a problem that is not known to exist. It is tempting to remark that this is perhaps typical of what the Georgia General Assembly does nowadays.
Moreover, whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional is rarely cut and dried. Seldom does a law, simply by what it says, violate the founding principles. For example, were Congress to pass a law saying that henceforth only Muslim worship services would be permitted within the federal borders, that would be unconstitutional on its face. If it were to pass legislation saying that only religions that can prove the existence of God are entitled to freedom of worship — just like only citizens who can prove they exist under the photo ID law may vote in person — then the matter becomes less simple.
PERHAPS MOST interesting is Murphy’s pointing out that states have significant flexibility and authority on the “manner” of regulating polling places, so long as the right to vote is itself not denied. This is not new ground, and the fact that the established procedures may or may not be chilling to participation is not, in itself, the determining factor.
In theory at least, the state could require in-person voters to show up buck naked at the polls. If modesty is more important to them than exercising their right to vote that is, one supposes, their problem and not the state’s.
And, so far as Murphy’s praise for the state’s belated educational efforts to inform voters on the new requirement, the fact remains that his ruling was far more educational than anything the state has been saying. Unfortunately, few citizens ever read a court ruling from cover to cover and thus, like the student who never opens a book, learn nothing.
For example, as Murphy’s 159-page ruling teaches what the state does not emphasize: “Individuals who do not have an acceptable photo ID for in-person voting can obtain an absentee ballot and vote absentee by mail without providing an excuse. Although plaintiffs contend that the average Georgia voter cannot read and understand the absentee ballot request form, there is no requirement that a voter complete that form. Instead, a voter need only write his name, address and date of birth on a piece of paper, indicate in which election he wishes to vote absentee, and mail the piece of paper to his registrar. If he cannot do this, or if he cannot complete the absentee ballot request form, he can obtain assistance from a family member.
“SIMILARLY, if the voter cannot read and complete the absentee ballot, a family member can help him. The state thus has not, as plaintiffs contend, completely barred voters who lack photo ID from voting.”
The absentee loophole is no secret, but one portion of Murphy’s analysis is particularly educational, and not to be found in any of the state’s distributed materials:
“Under the State Election Board’s rules and regulations, a voter may present his or her voter registration application as a form of identification in order to obtain a voter ID card from a county registrar. To register to vote, an individual need not provide a Social Security number, and is not required to provide any other identifying documentation, including a photo ID. A voter thus could register to vote, provide his or her voter registration application to the registrar, and, once his or her voter registration application is accepted, obtain a voter ID card, all without showing any other form of identifying information.
“In theory, a voter who registered fraudulently several years ago now may use his or her fraudulent voter registration application to obtain a voter ID card, which he or she may use to vote in person.”
This appears to raise an interesting and novel aspect of jurisprudence. Is it possible for a law to be unconstitutional when it is impossible for it to work?
Next: These photo IDs are actually a Judas goat.
|
No Related links found
|
