December 31, 2007
By Jonathan Bechtle - OLYMPIA, Wash.
There's a showdown at the O.K Corral, otherwise known as the U.S. Supreme Court, over an issue most of us think about only once a year, if that. The ballot box.
On one side are Indiana election officials; on the other is the American Civil Liberties Union and the Indiana Democratic Party. The fight is over an Indiana law requiring people to show photo ID when they go to vote. Sounds like a common-sense requirement, right? According to a Wall Street Journal poll, more than 80 percent of Americans think so, but the measure has drawn vehement opposition from those who think it is unconstitutional because it might be harder for some people to vote.
While this may seem a minor issue, one glance at the length of the list of amicus (friend of the court) briefs filed in the case make the high stakes obvious. Twenty-four briefs were filed by 83 groups and 50 individuals opposed to Indiana's law; another 14 briefs have been filed in support of the state.
Why is it such a big deal? Because the court's decision could change the face of ballot security requirements in elections all across America, either affirming states' efforts to protect the ballot box, or if it rules against Indiana, severely hindering them.
Fundamental changes have been made in election administration since the "hanging chads" mess in the 2000 presidential election. One area of change is identification requirements. There are huge numbers of deceased, felon, duplicate and noncitizen voters increasing opportunities for fraud. Indiana's rolls, for example, are inflated by as much as 40 percent over the actual number of registered voters.
This perceived danger has been compounded by recent instances of illegal voting, including a Washington state gubernatorial race decided by only 133 votes, in which a court discovered more than 1,600 illegal ballots. An Indiana mayoral race was overturned due to 155 illegal votes. A Milwaukee election in which investigators found nearly 5,000 suspicious votes and later charged 14 people with illegal voting, drew national attention. A Tennessee state senate race decided by 12 votes was overturned due to evidence of illegal ballots: Six individuals were charged with vote fraud.
These kinds of facts compelled Indiana and Georgia to enact a photo ID requirement to protect against vote fraud, including provisions for free IDs or ballot alternatives for people without photo ID. They're not alone, as 25 other states have passed or considered photo ID or similar verification requirements.
All these security requirements could be affected by the Supreme Court's decision. Each is intended to protect against voter fraud, but each also puts some level of burden on voters. The petitioners are asking the court, in effect, to declare that these types of security laws are too burdensome on voters.
But they've precious little evidence to prove that point, being unable to produce even one Indiana voter who couldn't cast a ballot because of the photo ID law. The same lack of evidence was present in similar cases in Georgia and Washington state.
On the other hand, illegal ballots are a documented reality in many elections all over the country. Even in small numbers they plunge elections into confusion and demoralize voters. After the debacle in Washington's 2004 gubernatorial race, voter confidence plunged to the point that only 17 percent of voters trusted the state's election system.
The importance of maintaining election security and voter confidence was noted by the Supreme Court in a 1964 case: "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."
Election security laws like photo ID are justified by the need to ensure only legal votes are cast and counted. The burden on voters can be reduced to a reasonable level by well-crafted laws like Indiana's. The Supreme Court should uphold the photo ID requirement, thus confirming states' authority to protect the integrity of elections.
This is one case where common sense should prevail.
Jonathan Bechtle is an attorney with the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan free-market policy institute in Olympia, Wash. He co-authored an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court by the Foundation in support of the respondents in the Indiana photo ID case.
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/COMMENTARY/127201184
