Analysts Say Holder’s Rejection Of South Carolina Voter ID Law Won’t Deter Other States
Dec 31, 2011 19 Comments ›› Pat Dollard
WASHINGTON – The Justice Department’s rejection of South Carolina’s voter ID law probably won’t prevent other states from adopting similar measures, analysts say.
“Unfortunately, I don’t think this is going to have a significant chilling effect,” said Wendy Weiser, a voter ID opponent and lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University law school.
The South Carolina law would have required voters to show one of five government-issued IDs — such as a drivers license or passport — before casting a ballot.
Justice officials said the state didn’t show the law complied with the 1965 Voter Rights Act and didn’t justify the need for the law or prove widespread voter impersonation, which tougher ID laws are designed to prevent.
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has promised to appeal.
Doug Chapin, an election-law expert at the University of Minnesota, agreed it’s unlikely the rejection of the South Carolina law will sway advocates for similar laws in other states.
“People who believe in IDs are just going to go foot to the floor and try to get it enacted,” he said.
And the South Carolina decision applies only in that state, limiting its national impact, said Jennie Bowser, an elections expert at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
“I don’t think that any state is going to stop either their consideration of voter ID or their implementation of their voter ID law because of what the DOJ did last week,” Bowser said. “I think it’s just one more voice in the debate at this point.”
The Justice Department is expected to rule on Texas’ voter ID law in early 2012.
Under the Voting Rights Act, all or parts of 16 states with a history of discriminatory voting practices — including South Carolina — must get approval from the government before making election changes. They can get clearance from Justice officials or from federal courts.
Most states can change their election laws without having to get advance approval from the federal government. And those that do need approval can turn to the courts if the Justice Department says no, noted David Bositis, an analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.
He said many states already have passed tougher voter ID laws or other measures — such as shortening early-voting days — that critics say have a discriminatory impact.
Chapin said the Justice Department’s decision “does give voter ID opponents another arrow in the quiver.” He said the 2012 presidential campaign could help spark new challenges — and maybe new lawsuits — targeting tougher voter ID laws.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued Wisconsin over its voter ID law, and other groups that oppose tougher ID laws may also go to court, experts say.
Critics of such laws “have lost the arguments in the legislatures and the only way to stop those laws now is the judicial process,” Chapin said. “So as we get closer and closer to Election Day, whether or not lawsuits get filed, there will be lots of sabers rattled.”
Eight states — Mississippi, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin — require government-issued photo IDs to vote, according to the NCSL.
Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota request photo IDs, but voters may cast a ballot if they meet other criteria.
Sixteen states require some form of identification to vote, but not necessarily photo IDs.
The South Carolina law could have made it harder, if not impossible, for “tens of thousands” of minority voters to cast ballots, the Justice Department said in its decision, adding that the state’s own figures show nearly 82,000 registered minority voters lack state-issued identification.
Civil rights groups say the voter ID laws suppress voter turnout, particularly among minorities, the elderly and the poor. Defenders of the laws say they prevent voter fraud.
South Carolina GOP state Sen. Larry Martin said states have taken pains to make sure the voter ID requirements aren’t burdensome. For instance, South Carolina was willing to provide free IDs and free rides to polling booths, he told the Greenville (S.C.) News recently.
“You can’t do much of anything without providing identification,” he told the paper. “You can’t cash a check, you can’t get on an airplane.”
But Katie O’Connor, an ACLU attorney in Atlanta, said showing ID before voting is not the same as boarding an airplane.
“Voting is a fundamental right,” she said. “It’s a right that’s protected by more constitutional amendments than any other right we have as Americans. So, to compare the right to get on an airplane … is pretty misleading because we value the right to vote above those other things.”
A 2008 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Indiana’s voter ID law encouraged other states to pass or consider similar measures.
In 2011, state lawmakers introduced voter ID measures in 20 states, according to the NCSL. Nine state legislatures rejected those measures, but eight measures are pending in states like New Jersey, Iowa and New York.
Voter ID laws are generally more popular with Republican governors and legislatures. But the Democratic-majority Rhode Island legislature passed an ID law in 2011, and Ohio’s Republican secretary of state blocked that state’s ID law.
Rep. Terri Sewell, D-Ala., said her state’s new voter ID law and others adopted by Republican-controlled legislatures attempt to “suppress voting, not protect voting.”
“We should be trying to encourage people to go to the polls and vote, instead of discouraging (them) and putting up another roadblock,” said Sewell, whose district was at the heart of voter registration efforts during the civil rights movement.
