Supreme Court Ruling on Indiana Voter ID Law the 'Wrong Decision'
April 29, AFL-CIO
In a decision on April 28 that could disenfranchise millions of average Americans, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, on a 6-3 vote, Indiana's voter identification law, the most restrictive law of its kind in the country.
In his dissent, Justice David Souter echoed what critics of the law have said all along. "Indiana's voter ID law threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state's citizens, and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting," says Souter.
After the 2000 election, Republicans in many states have pushed for voter ID laws, claiming voter fraud is rampant. But studies have shown the problem does not exist.
The Indiana law requires anyone voting in person to present a current government photo ID. If you don't have one, you can vote provisionally at the polls, but you must present the required ID at an appropriate government office within 10 days or your vote will not be counted. People who don't have IDs can get them free from the state, but they must have other documents, such as a certified birth certificate and other secondary proof.
The law's real effect, say its opponents, is to take away the right to vote from people of color and elderly, disabled and young citizens. Recent reports show, for example, that more than 40,000 Hoosier voters lack legal voter identification right now.
Ken Falk, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and lead counsel on the case, points out there is no evidence that Indiana's voter ID law is justified by any actual problem of voting fraud, which already is prohibited by various criminal statutes in the state. No cases of in-person voting fraud have been prosecuted in the state in recent history, he says.
For many Americans, the cost of processing the paperwork for a government ID is so daunting they may not vote. The logistics of tracking down documents, traveling to offices and even just knowing where to begin can be extremely daunting for the elderly, the disabled, the poor and voters in rural communities.