An interesting, but I am guessing largely inconsequential decision was announced by the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday: Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In a 6 to 3 decision, the High Court upheld Indiana's law requiring a photo identification to vote. Indiana is said to have the toughest voter ID law in the country, though South Dakota and several other states have similar laws. SD law allows a voter without ID to sign an affidavit and then vote. Indiana's law allows someone to vote without ID, but requires that person to appear later before an official to verify the ballot.
The Court split by thirds. Stevens, Roberts, and Kennedy agreed that the Indiana law imposed no undue burden on voters, i.e., no burden that was not justified by the state's interest in enforcing voting requirements. But they took seriously the idea that slightly more stringent requirements would violate the Constitution.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined in the decision, but they would have allowed more stringent regulations.
Souter, Breyer, and Ginsburg would have struck down the law.
As usual, Scalia was right. If it is permissible to allow some people to vote (citizens), but others not, (resident or illegal aliens, felons, three year olds), then states should be allowed to impose the same ID requirements that are imposed on job seekers, check signers, and persons wishing to purchase alcoholic beverages.
To be sure, every registered voter is entitled to vote and states should strive to make sure that they can. But the people are also entitled to know that the laws are being enforced. Voting is a fundamental civil right, but that fact does not relieve the citizen of all responsibility in the exercise of that right.
Recent Comments