The editorial discusses how a federal judge blocked a Georgia law that would have required voters to obtain particular forms of identification that in many cases would have cost them money from taking effect. the judge's rationale was that any time voting is tied to paying fees it becomes tantamount to a poll tax. I agree with this decision, even though some nitwits will make the argument that getting a license or other voter identification card is not that onerous. I do not believe that Georgia officials were trying to push forward a racist platform in the guise of tightening up voter identification requirements, although the outcome clearly would have been most burdensome on black and poor voters. The point is not how burdensome it is or is not to get an identification card. the burden comes with tying the right to vote with having to pay money to do so. Only people who have been poor understand that $20 truly can be enough to prevent someone from doing something, in this case getting the necessary documentation for engaging in what is supposed to be qa fundamental right of citizenship.
So what does all of this have to do with Newport, New Hampshire? Every time I have been back home and wanted to vote whether in person or most often as an absentee, (as I maintained my New Hampshire citizenship for a host of reasons in grad school even when I was in Charlotte, Ohio, South Africa, or DC-- Live Free or Die, baby!) I had to make sure I had paid my "Town Tax" before I could receive my ballot. I always thought there was something askew about that requirement, as it directly linked a local tax with my ability to cast a vote. As far as I know, Newport still does this. And I do not believe that Newport, New Hampshire and the state of Georgia are the only places that have linked voting with paying some sort of duty to the municipality, county, or state. The town tax was, as I recall, relatively small, something like $10. But for someone who is unemployed, or for an underemployed single mother, or for a graduate student, or for those unfortunate masses for whom voting is something they will do as long as it is not burdensome, a $10 or $20 cost might tip the scales against this rudimentary component of citizenship. And as long as such provisions skew against the poor, and thus in places like Georgia, against minorities, we need a zero-tolerance policy. Now more than ever we should recognize what a precious right the franchise is, and we should be encouraging more Americans to exercise suffrage as we push for liberal democracies in the rest of the world.
2 comments:
The judge's reasoning is lame.
The law he calls a "poll tax" specifically makes provision to provide the card for FREE to those who cannot afford it!
His response? Some people will be embarrassed to apply for the free I.D.
Maybe so, maybe not, but sorry, your honor, that is a criticism of the POLICY; it does not touch the CONSTITUTIONALITY of the law. And please note that setting policy is NOT your job, nor does your disagreement with the wisdom of this particular policy magically transform the law into a "poll tax".
It's always fine for legislators and the people who elect them to criticize a law as poorly drafted or even as stupid policy. But that does not suddenly make it unconstitutional nor give judges the authority to toss the law out.
Meanwhile, is there somebody on the left willing to admit that voter fraud is a real issue and, if they disagree with attempts to address it through voter IDs, is willing to suggest an alternative solution and to work for it?
Bruhaha --
Here is the thing about the provision to have a fee waived -- voting is not subject to passing a means test. Period. No one should have to apply to have a fee waived that they cannot afford in order to bvote because even affluent folks should not have to pay a tax in order to do so. Not in Georgia and not in New Hampshire. So it still is a Constitutional question, and it is a question, perhaps, not of policy, but of law. So while you are condescending to a sitting judge about his interpretation of the law, please explain to me if it is ok to charge rich folks poll taxes.
I have no idea why you place the idea of dealing with voter fraud into left-right terms in your comment. But I do know that in any case it is a bit of a red herring -- it seems to me that the burden is on you not simply to assert that voter fraud is a rampant problem but rather to prove that the state has a compelling enough interest to violate the Constitution to do so. Unless you actually are saying we can means test for voting rights, even if indirectly. And I have a hard time believing that you are saying that.
In any case, the Georgia situation is both bad law Constitutionally and it is bad policy. And one of the main facets of my point is that it happens beyond the georgia example. Or am I wrong about New Hampshire too?
But in any case, your post indicates that you believe that judges who turn over acts of legislatures are acting out of their ambit. good to know -- the three judges that have voted to overturn Congress more than any others on the court since Breyer's arrival in 1994? 1. Thomas 2. Kennedy 3. Scalia.
You were saying . . .
dc
Post a Comment