In May 2011, Gov. Scott Walker signed into effect the controversial voter ID law, which would require voters to show any of several types of state issued IDs in order to participate in elections. Supporters of voter ID claim some form of identification should be required in order to better regulate elections and prevent fraud. Critics of the law argue requiring citizens to show identification disenfranchises voters, especially the elderly and minorities. Critics also argue there is ultimately no evidence voter fraud has been a prevalent problem in past elections. 

Since that time, two injunctions blocking the law have been filed, one by the League of Women Voters and the other by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Until these injunctions are resolved in court, the voter ID law cannot go into effect. In the most recent phase of this story, Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen has asked the Supreme Court of Wisconsin to bypass the two appellate courts which are hearing the current injunctions, to take both cases at the same time and to deliver a decision before the November election. 

There are several problems with Van Hollen’s request to the Supreme Court, the biggest one being time. It is a poor government that forces decisions to be made quickly. Our government system is set up to perform slowly, giving time for all sides of the issue to be brought forward. If the Supreme Court does take up the cases now and makes a decision before November, it will not only disrupt the arguments taking place in the appellate courts but also take time away from the thorough and efficient discussions that need to take place in order to make rational decisions. 

There is also the time-sensitive conundrum of educating the electorate should the law be declared constitutional. In order to perform fair elections, an adequate amount of time must be given to properly inform our citizens about the new voting policies. Not only will voters need to be informed, but also poll workers will need to be taught how to run elections. This cannot be expected to be done properly, even if the Supreme Court were to take up the case now and make a decision by early October. 

Time constraints aside, the voter ID law itself has several failures. The kind of voter fraud the law is aimed to prevent is referred to as in-person voter fraud, in which a person shows up at polling places to vote multiple times or under the name of a different person. An investigation conducted by Carnegie-Knight on voter fraud found that only 10 cases of alleged in-person voter fraud have occurred since 2000 in the United States. 

Not only is there very little evidence that the voter ID law is necessary – there is actually evidence that it will be ineffective against several types of voter fraud. The voter fraud cases that are most damaging to elections usually take place through absentee ballots and when people who control elections tamper with the results. In both of these scenarios the proposed voter ID law will not prevent fraud, as most types of absentee ballots do not require ID and ID has no effect on who runs elections, according to the Government Accountability Board. 

In order for a fair and informed decision to be made, sufficient time must be given to the courts to hear discussions. It will also take time to educate Wisconsinites on what is needed to vote. If we go into November with a confused electorate, fewer people will be able to properly vote. In order for democracy to work efficiently, an educated electorate is necessary.