An e-mail from the National Coalition for the Homeless asks, “Are we disenfranchising the poor?” This in announcing it’s called on the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene.
The “we” here are the states that won’t let people vote unless they present a photo ID — or won’t count their vote unless they come back with one in a matter of days.
These “strict photo ID” requirements, as the National Conference of State Legislators calls them, seem to be getting more popular.
At the beginning of 2011, only two states — Georgia and Indiana — had them. Now seven more states do, though three of them can’t impose the requirements until they get permission from the Justice Department.
These three, like Georgia as well, are subject to the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act because they have a history of voting discrimination. Tells you something, doesn’t it?
NCH is understandably concerned that the photo ID requirements will keep homeless people from voting. There are particular problems, it says, in getting a photo ID when you don’t have a stable address.
However, most of the problems it identifies would affect other low-income people too.
Consider that you can’t just waltz into a government office and get a photo ID. You’ve got to show some other officially-recognized ID that proves you’re who you claim to be.
A birth certificate will do, though maybe only with some other proof of identify. But lots of people will have to send away for a copy — once they figure out where to send. They’ll have to pay a fee for it and obviously get started well in advance of election day.
NCH maintains that elderly people born in the South may not have a birth certificate because they were delivered at home by midwives. An online news source in South Carolina confirms this and details potentially costly, time-consuming complications.
One way or the other, you’re likely to have surmounted the hurdles if you’re a middle-class American. You’ve got a photo on your driver’s license.
If you never drive, you’re likely to have gotten a state ID, though AARP argues that seniors and people with disabilities may not, especially those in assisted living facilities or nursing homes.
In theory, the burdens of the photo ID requirements fall equally on blacks, browns and whites. But so did the notorious poll taxes Southern states used to keep blacks from voting.
In fact, Congressman John Lewis (D-GA) calls the photo ID requirements “a poll tax by another name,” noting that as many as 25% of blacks have no form of acceptable identification. This is almost certainly linked to the fact that a far higher percentage of blacks than whites are poor. Hispanics also.
Nevertheless, I’m inclined to think that legislators who’ve passed strict photo ID requirements have a different agenda from the out-in-out racists Lewis bravely campaigned against in the early 1960s.
They don’t so much object to racial and ethnic minority voters per se. Or to low-income voters generally. It’s how they vote.
Republicans control both houses of the legislature in all but one of the states — Rhode Island — that adopted strict photo ID requirements this year. And all five governors who vetoed strict voting requirements state legislatures had passed were Democrats.
So what we seem to be seeing here are partisan preemptive strikes against low-income voters — perhaps especially racial and ethnic minorities — because of the candidates they’re likely to support.
Even in the last election, which saw a big shift to Republicans, majorities in all three of these overlapping categories voted Democrat. So did college students — another group that will face new barriers to voting.
Supporters of photo ID requirements claim they’re necessary to prevent voter fraud. However, cases of proven voter fraud are rare.
And cases where the fraud involved impersonating someone else — the kind of fraud a photo ID requirement would prevent — are, according to a Brennan Center for Justice study, “an occurrence more rare than getting struck by lightning.”
Disenfranchisement of any eligible voter for any reason should cause the gravest concerns.
Disenfranchising millions of homeless and other low-income Americans — or even discouraging them from voting — because of how they vote is outrageous.
But it’s a good way to tilt election outcomes, isn’t it?