Voter ID proposals threaten civil rights

Photo requirement has greater impact on blacks

RYAN PAUL HAYGOOD

Progressive Media Project    02 May 2005

The Voting Rights Act was passed 40 years ago. Shamelessly, several states are considering voter identification bills that threaten to undo much of the progress made during the civil rights era.

Considered the most effective civil rights legislation enacted, the Voting Rights Act had a profound impact on registering black voters and increasing the opportunities for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice.

By contrast, the pending ID bills are an effort to keep minority and elderly participation at low levels. By requiring additional hoops to jump through, taking part in the democratic process would become increasingly difficult.

Georgia's proposal is one of the most onerous.

On April 22, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed one of the strictest measures in the United States for screening voters. It requires voters to present one of six forms of government-issued photo identification at the polls. Under the old law, Georgia voters were allowed to present any of 17 forms of identification, including bank statements and utility bills, which contain no photos.

Fortunately, a safety mechanism under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that any changes to Georgia's voting laws, including its photo ID bill, must be pre-approved by the federal government to root out discriminatory intent or effects. This was put in place because of the state's long and deep-seated history of discrimination against black voting.

Photo identification requirements would have a disproportionately negative impact on specific communities and would reduce participation by otherwise eligible voters. There is evidence that the identification requirement would impose a severe burden on poor, minority, elderly and rural voters, who are less likely to have photo identification.

A study by the Department of Justice revealed that blacks in Louisiana were five times less likely to have photo identification than whites.

Five other states ask voters to furnish photo identification at the polls, but each also accepts alternatives. Florida and Louisiana, for instance, allow voters who sign affidavits at the polling place to cast a ballot.

Sponsors of Georgia's voter identification bill assert that the legislation is intended to prevent fraud and enhance confidence in election results. But since the bill was not created in response to any particular instance of fraud, and its sponsors proffered an insufficient record of voter fraud in the state, it is questionable, at best, whether the bill is necessary. Supporters of the bill have yet to make a convincing case that existing methods of discouraging and punishing fraud are insufficient.

Unfortunately, Georgia's legislature is not alone.

Photo ID legislation was introduced this year in Minnesota, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Virginia and Washington. Bills have passed in Wisconsin and Indiana legislatures.

Under the Wisconsin bill, a voter would be required to produce a driver's license, official state ID or military ID. Currently, a registered voter in Wisconsin needs only to give his or her name and address to cast a ballot. The bill awaits an expected veto from Gov. Jim Doyle.

Lawmakers in Indiana passed a similar voter identification bill, which Gov. Mitch Daniels has indicated he will likely sign.

Forty years after passage of the Voting Rights Act, we once again find ourselves faced with state laws that could impede minority voter participation. And again, the American people and in Georgia's case, the Department of Justice must step up to help end these unfair and unjust practices.