9th Circus upholds Arizon voter id at polls law

[sailor]

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33081

9th Circuit sitting En Banc upholds Arizona requirement that photo id be presented when having to vote. Considering that a number of other states, such as Massachusetts have required ID for decades, that's not surprising.

It strikes down the proof of American citizenship registration requirement on Federal supremacy grounds.  The National Voter Mail Registration law trumps local laws.

[RandallS]

It strikes down the proof of American citizenship registration requirement on Federal supremacy grounds.  The National Voter Mail Registration law trumps local laws.

Not surprising at all.  And a very good decision considering how many actual citizens would be able to produce documents proving such with spending a fortune (and in some cases would be unable to prove it witrh government documents no matter how much money they spent due to no such documents existing (e.g. birth certificates not required when the older person was born, local/state records destroyed in fire/flood/other disaster).

Much to the dismay of conservatives, I'd rather risk 10,000 non-citizens voting illegally (especially since even one so voting is rare) than prevent one citizen from voting because it cannot prove citizenship with the specific documents required.

[sailor]

Not surprising at all.  And a very good decision considering how many actual citizens would be able to produce documents proving such with spending a fortune (and in some cases would be unable to prove it witrh government documents no matter how much money they spent due to no such documents existing (e.g. birth certificates not required when the older person was born, local/state records destroyed in fire/flood/other disaster).

Much to the dismay of conservatives, I'd rather risk 10,000 non-citizens voting illegally (especially since even one so voting is rare) than prevent one citizen from voting because it cannot prove citizenship with the specific documents required.

 
Uh, the proof of citizenship was struck down because the Federal voter registration form does not require it, not over how hard or easy it was to get id.  

The part about having to show photo id to actually vote was upheld.

There is a bunch of cases of non-citizen's being registered to vote.

[RandallS]

Uh, the proof of citizenship was struck down because the Federal voter registration form does not require it, not over how hard or easy it was to get id.

Exactly, but I just gave a reason for WHY requiring it is a very bad idea unless the government requiring can guarantee that no citizen will ever be deigned the right to vote because documentration is not available for causes more than say the cost of a driver's license to obtain.

There is a bunch of cases of non-citizen's being registered to vote.

But not a lot of proven cases of them actually voting. The whole issue exists solely because conservatives seldom do well when there is a large voter turnout so they logically do everything they can to reduce the turnout. That's the only explanation I can think of for being more concerned about rare cases of non-citizens voting or rare people voting under another people's name, than they are the larger number of people eligible to vote who would not be able to under such laws either because of the expense of getting the proof said laws require or because the government records required no longer exist.

[sailor]

Exactly, but I just gave a reason for WHY requiring it is a very bad idea unless the government requiring can guarantee that no citizen will ever be deigned the right to vote because documentration is not available for causes more than say the cost of a driver's license to obtain.



But not a lot of proven cases of them actually voting. The whole issue exists solely because conservatives seldom do well when there is a large voter turnout so they logically do everything they can to reduce the turnout. That's the only explanation I can think of for being more concerned about rare cases of non-citizens voting or rare people voting under another people's name, than they are the larger number of people eligible to vote who would not be able to under such laws either because of the expense of getting the proof said laws require or because the government records required no longer exist.

 
The court also upheld the requirement to produce approved ID to actually vote, so they don't consider it very hard to get ID. Especially since the opponents could not produce a class of people who were unable to vote due to inability to get ID.

[RandallS]

The court also upheld the requirement to produce approved ID to actually vote, so they don't consider it very hard to get ID. Especially since the opponents could not produce a class of people who were unable to vote due to inability to get ID.

Getting ID does not require proving citizenship. Two separate issues. Also, I suspect if getting ID became expensive (more than what say a DL costs in most states now), the courts would probably look at it again as it might become effectively a poll tax designed to keep poorer people from voting -- which is definitely unconstitutional.

[Owl]

http://electionlawblog.org/?p=33081

9th Circuit sitting En Banc upholds Arizona requirement that photo id be presented when having to vote. Considering that a number of other states, such as Massachusetts have required ID for decades, that's not surprising.

It strikes down the proof of American citizenship registration requirement on Federal supremacy grounds.  The National Voter Mail Registration law trumps local laws.

 
I seem to remember having to show ID to vote.  WA has been vote by mail for so long that I don't remember for sure.

[Owl]

The court also upheld the requirement to produce approved ID to actually vote, so they don't consider it very hard to get ID. Especially since the opponents could not produce a class of people who were unable to vote due to inability to get ID.

 It's really pretty rare that someone doesn't have ID.  It's required for so many things....

[sailor]

I seem to remember having to show ID to vote.  WA has been vote by mail for so long that I don't remember for sure.

 
Aren't you glad you live in a racist state that the ACLU is going to sue for voter discrimination soon?

Oh, wait, your state reliably votes Democrat so voter id can't be bad.  /sarcasm

[mandrina]

Aren't you glad you live in a racist state that the ACLU is going to sue for voter discrimination soon?

Oh, wait, your state reliably votes Democrat so voter id can't be bad.  /sarcasm

 
I'm not real worried about the id requirement for Washington state, since a large amount of it isn't really that hard to get.   I doubt they'll be sued by anyone.

I looked up Arizona's law, the id part is a bit more arduous, but not too bad.  You can do it with two different utility bill.  As a aside, I wonder why a passport is not acceptable.

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/OSOS/EN/VOTERINFORMATION/Pages/IDandPollingPlaceAccessibility.aspx

Photo ID, such as a driver's license, state ID card, student ID card, or tribal ID card
Voter registration card
Utility Bill
Bank statement
Paycheck
Government check
Other government document

[mandrina]

I'm not real worried about the id requirement for Washington state, since a large amount of it isn't really that hard to get.   I doubt they'll be sued by anyone.

I looked up Arizona's law, the id part is a bit more arduous, but not too bad.  You can do it with two different utility bill.  As a aside, I wonder why a passport is not acceptable.

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/OSOS/EN/VOTERINFORMATION/Pages/IDandPollingPlaceAccessibility.aspx

Photo ID, such as a driver's license, state ID card, student ID card, or tribal ID card
Voter registration card
Utility Bill
Bank statement
Paycheck
Government check
Other government document

 
and the above is only if you vote at the poling place.  IF you vote by mail, I suspect the id is only at the registration.

[Owl]

I'm not real worried about the id requirement for Washington state, since a large amount of it isn't really that hard to get.   I doubt they'll be sued by anyone.

I looked up Arizona's law, the id part is a bit more arduous, but not too bad.  You can do it with two different utility bill.  As a aside, I wonder why a passport is not acceptable.

http://wei.secstate.wa.gov/OSOS/EN/VOTERINFORMATION/Pages/IDandPollingPlaceAccessibility.aspx

Photo ID, such as a driver's license, state ID card, student ID card, or tribal ID card
Voter registration card
Utility Bill
Bank statement
Paycheck
Government check
Other government document

As you say, this list is not real arduous.  The first item everyone should really have anyway.  And the second if you are registered to vote.  It might make it hard for someone who is homeless or couch surfing.

[mandrina]

As you say, this list is not real arduous.  The first item everyone should really have anyway.  And the second if you are registered to vote.  It might make it hard for someone who is homeless or couch surfing.

 
actually that is part of the idea, to keep people who are homeless, etc, but otherwise qualified, from being prevented from voting on those grounds,

[sailor]

actually that is part of the idea, to keep people who are homeless, etc, but otherwise qualified, from being prevented from voting on those grounds,

 
If being homeless was a bar to voting, then the plaintiffs should have presented a homeless person who tried to vote but was turned down after using all the options or show that the easy options were not available.

I suspect that passport falls either under "other govt id" or is excluded with regards to proof of Current residnece due to length of validity.  A passport could have an address that is up to 10 years out of date whereas a driver's license is required to be kept current (mostly 60 days) as to address.

[Thorn]

A passport could have an address that is up to 10 years out of date whereas a driver's license is required to be kept current (mostly 60 days) as to address.

Just FYI - This would normally make a lot of sense, but not in Arizona, where this law is in effect.  While you have to keep your name and address current with the Motor Vehicles Dept, you only get a new license if you request it and pay a fee.  The original is still considered good.  AZ driver's licenses technically don't expire until one's 65th birthday, but you're supposed to update your photo every 12 years.  So, the information on my driver's license could be up to two years older than on my passport.

My best guess would be that passports would be included under "other government documents" and they didn't feel the need to list is seperately since so few Americans have one.