Opinion
Some students, low-income residents may be stripped of their rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Paul Axel:
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is not much of a surprise. The decision upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to have photo IDs “issued by the United States or the state of Indiana” in order to vote. The Indiana state Legislature passed the law along strict partisan lines, and it was upheld by lower court judges with a recognized politically conservative leaning. The Supreme Court’s decision also fell along political lines — the six judges in the majority were nominated by Republican presidents, the three dissenters by Bill Clinton (except for Justice Souter). However, it is not proper to accuse the justices of partisanship. Instead, I will focus on the ramifications of the Indiana law. The law, as it stands, makes it difficult for particular members of society to cast their vote, including the elderly, those living below the poverty level and college students.
In order to obtain a state-issued photo ID, applicants must provide a birth certificate and another form of identification, such as a lease or utility bill. This is a difficult task for the elderly, who may not have birth certificates or a way to access them, especially if they were born in another state. The homeless, who may have their birth certificate, will not have an address to put on the ID, let alone a lease or bill to prove their residence. In the case of the indigent, it may be economically impossible to obtain their certificate — Indiana requires a $3 to $12 processing fee. In rare cases, those who are religiously forbidden from having their photograph taken are barred from having a photo ID. The Supreme Court may find it acceptable for certain people to fall through the cracks and lose their right to vote, but I find it abhorrent and un-American. There is also one group of people whose situation was not addressed by the Supreme Court — the out-of-state student vote.
Indiana universities have one of the highest numbers of out-of-state students in the country, and the highest in Midwest. Out-of-state students spend more than half the year living in Indiana, and they meet all the requirements of residency in order to vote in the state. Unfortunately, thanks to the new voter ID law, the vast majority of the students will be unable to vote because most out-of-state students, strangely enough, do not hold Indiana ID cards or drivers’ licenses. Also, many students who are not from Indiana have little reason to change their state of origin on their ID. Students can lose scholarship awards from their home state or have problems with their health insurance if they are covered under their parents’ policies.
Even fewer students own federal forms of identification, such as passports, and may elect to keep them at home. Even if an out-of-state student wanted to get an Indiana ID, the fact that a student’s residence often changes from year to year, (from the dorms to an apartment, for example), makes acquiring an Indiana ID impractical.
Never mind that the student vote can change the results of an election, as it did here in Wisconsin in 2000 and 2004. Never mind that the people most affected by the Supreme Court’s decision tend to vote Democratic, and the bill was written and passed solely by Republicans. Never mind that getting a state ID is time-consuming for students and often impossible for the elderly, poor or homeless. Indiana is protecting voters and the integrity of elections, and if a few thousand Democratic-leaning voters suddenly can’t cast a ballot on Election Day 2008, so be it. I understand and respect Indiana’s obligation to prevent voter fraud. I simply disagree with the overtly partisan tactics the state now employs to do so. Such schemes make me appreciate that I go to school in Wisconsin, where I can easily vote as an out-of-state student.
Wisconsin must respect the rights of its young voters who, through enrollment in schools across the state, consider Wisconsin their home and choose to exercise their right to vote here. The Indiana voter ID law is not an example to be followed.
Paul Axel (paxel@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in history and political science, and is deputy volunteer coordinator of UW-Madison College Democrats.
15 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
521 W Dayton 4BR/2BA. Marble showers, dishwasher, completely updated! madisoncampusrentals.com
1, 2, or 3 bedroom apartment available for spring 2010. meltzer@wisc.edu if you are interested!
Mr. Axel,
You can very easily vote here as an out-of-state student. What stops you from getting an absentee ballot from your home state and voting twice?
I dont have aproblem with proving who you are. The issue will be what constitutes proof. If at minimum one must have one of those fancy hologramed pieces of plastic thats states issue then this is going to be a problem for many.
How about a national voter file that allows states to double-check his residency and imprison him if he were to vote twice?
Not to mention that the Indiana system is so screwed up that even college students who have tried to obtain Indiana IDs have been denied the right to do so. Talk to students at Purdue, and watch what they have to say in the coming days about this decision.
“The Supreme Court’s decision also fell along political lines”
True. HOWEVER, just because you’re nominated by a Republican or Democrat, doesn’t mean you are. Take a look at the history of the Supreme Court. Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion, is widely accepted to be one of the most Liberal justices on the bench.
I really like it when the College Republicans and College Democrats write on the same issue. It should happen more often. It allows me to better keep score. Let’s start fresh now that both orgs have “new leadership”.
CR: 1 CD: 0
Legal residence and actual sleeping place are often different for college students. What address is on their tax returns?
To 7:52am:
Unfortunately, I don’t think either won on this issue. Both made good points, but Sara had to resort to personal attacks and call Madison a “liberal cesspool”.
CR: 0 CD: 1
If as a citizen I have the right to vote, and if the state says I need a specific form of ID to vote, I’m fine with that, but it damn well better be free. a $3 - $12 may not seem to be a lot, but for the elderly it may mean not getting a prescription filled that month. Or for the poor it may mean that a child only gets one piece of fruit for lunch the entire week. This seems too close to a Poll Tax to me
“This seems too close to a Poll Tax to me”
Might even make it hard to buy the big screen TV, pay the cable bill or buy the $150 sneakers?
I assume it’s true that many poor and elderly people don’t have photo IDs. If that’s the case, isn’t THAT the real issue, rather than whether we require photo IDs at the polls? Whether or not an ID-less person can vote, he is screwed by his lack of an ID. It’s extremely hard to open a bank account, get loans, apply for a job, drive, or even get a library account without a photo ID. (Heck, I can’t even get a bowling lane without leaving my license).
If this issue were really about democratic accessibility rather than pumping up the turnout of one party vis-a-vis the other, I think it would make more sense to subsidize the $3-12 ID fee rather than remove the restriction that a voter have one.
—Brian McKenzie, mckenzie.12@nd.edu Notre Dame Observer
I live in Indiana and am a college student. It took me 30 minutes to get a State ID and it was free. I still have my California driver’s license. I got my birth certificate from my Mom. I also could have ordered it online from the state. My point is, any out-of-state student can vote if they want to. There is actually a bus that goes from IU to the local DMV (or BMV as the call it here). Also, don’t forget absentee voting for the truly lazy.
As for the extremely poor, homeless, and immobile seniors, I’m positive voting is the least of their concerns. I know it would be if I were one of them. Where the next meal is coming from and relief from pain or solitude seem like examples of more pressing matters for them than deciding who’s the better politician.
In the end, it’s comforting to pretend voting actually matters, but for the most part, it doesn’t. That’s why fewer and fewer people do it.
According to the Indiana law, if you cannot afford the photo ID, one will be provided to you free of charge. Look up the facts before you go spewing your incredulous information.
And Madison IS a Liberal Cesspool.
Students can vote absentee in their own states. Case closed.
Straight from the Indiana State Voter handbook:
“If the voter is unable to obtain an ID, because the voter is indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed, the voter may claim this exemption from the ID requirement by appearing in person before county election board and affirming under penalties of perjury that the exemption applies.”
The elderly are not required to have a birth certificate and can provide other forms such as medicaid/medicare, SS statement, and others in place of the birth certificates to get a state ID. (http://www.in.gov/bmv/3700.htm)
Also in the state of Indiana, state ids for voting purposes are free of charge and are good for 6 years (http://www.in.gov/bmv/3378.htm#Identification%20Card%20Fees).
While it may be a little “painful” for certain persons, there are ways for them to vote.
Just some information to think about, not trying to start any battles.
Please stop repeating this lie about caring of voter rights of poor and elderly. I remember how Democratic campaign workers slashed tires on cars that should ride voters to polls (2004 election).
5:19, that would be like me saying that all Republicans think gay people caused Katrina because a few ridiculous far right wingers did that. You can’t attribute the acts of a few to the whole population.