News & Observer | newsobserver.com |

Editorials

Democracy's loss

The U.S. Supreme Court sets the bar discouragingly low for states' efforts to discourage legitimate voters

Published: Sun, May. 04, 2008 12:30AM

Modified Sun, May. 04, 2008 02:25AM

Bookmark and Share email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print
Text Size:

tool name

close
tool goes here

Up in Washington, the Supreme Court made a mountain out of a molehill -- verified instances of people voting with fraudulent intent -- and then leveled the molehill with a bulldozer. By a 6-3 margin the court upheld an Indiana law that requires voters to present an official photo ID card at the polls.

Yes, the ruling may help deter fraud -- although Indiana hasn't experienced any (no wonder -- it's a felony to impersonate a registered voter). More likely, Indiana's law will deter legitimate voters. How? By placing a new burden on poor or elderly people, some of whom have been voting for years but lack the now-required ID.

These folks may be hard-pressed to comply -- getting such an ID generally requires a birth certificate. As one critic says, the ruling creates "new ways to keep voters from voting."

Indiana's intensely partisan voter ID law had been adopted on a party-line vote, Republicans for, Democrats against. GOP-leaning voters may well be more affluent and thus more likely to have government-issued ID than Democrats. But no matter: the court majority said states have an overriding interest in preventing fraud, even if part of their motivation is indeed to favor one political party.

This was a blinkered view of our voting history. Poll taxes and other barriers to poor and minority voting have been a shameful part of America's past. Now we get a ruling that treads uncomfortably similar ground. For example, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for himself and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, said there's no need to consider whether Indiana's law imposes a "special burden" on the poor. Scalia even suggested that poll taxes might be able to pass muster.

We're talking here about an American's right to vote, a right too often abridged for political or racial reasons. Yet the court cast its vote for a law with a strong whiff of voter suppression.

Meantime in North Carolina (which has no voter identification requirement) a different threat to orderly voting emerged last week. It involves an effort whose intent is still unclear. A Washington-based group called "Women's Voices. Women Vote" says it merely tries to encourage voter registration. But the group's initial actions seem at odds with its words.

It made misleading "robocalls," many to African-Americans, about a "voter registration packet" or "application" that must be received and returned before the person can vote. The caller is one "Lamont Williams." Coming just before the primary election, this might be an effort to make even registered voters think they can't vote unless they receive the packet.

The organization, which appears to be Democratic-leaning (it's officially nonpartisan), is a legitimate one, and says it quickly halted its campaign here. But in the context of Tuesday's primary, the robocalls are highly questionable. They may flow in the same rancid riverbed as past voter intimidation stunts here.

In 1990, for example, the state Republican Party, the Helms for Senate Committee and others sent cards to over 100,000 African-American voters, giving false information about eligibility and warning of penalties for voter fraud.

Actual voter fraud is intolerable, but it's rare and can be remedied without placing an unneeded burden on particular voters. In North Carolina, voter intimidation has been the bigger worry.

Get it all with convenient home delivery of The News & Observer.

No comments have been posted for this story. Log in to be the first to comment.
 

 

The News & Observer is pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting.

Since The News & Observer does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our website. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The News and Observer.

If you find a comment offensive, clicking on the exclamation icon will flag the comment for review by the administrators, we are counting on the good judgment of all our readers to help us.