Washington Week: Student Voices (O)

COLUMN: Requiring voters to show identification not a burden
By Brett King
Kansas State Collegian (Kansas State U.)
01/17/2008

(U-WIRE) MANHATTAN, Kan. — In the first major case before the Supreme Court concerning voting since Bush v. Gore, Democrats and the American Civil Liberties Union are fighting tooth and nail against an Indiana law requiring voters to present a state or federal ID to cast their ballot. Oral arguments for this case began Jan. 9.

A posting on the Democratic Party Web site declared opposition to the law based on its ability to disenfranchise "real voters — seniors, students, veterans, minorities and low-income families."

Chairman of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean, was quoted in the posting as saying, "Undemocratic voter ID laws are just another part of a broad Republican effort to undermine our fundamental right to vote ... We will not let Republicans steal another election."

Always quick to shoot off his mouth without the facts, Dean should re-examine the results from the 2006 Election in the state of Indiana. While the law was in effect, according to voting results posted on CNN.com, three incumbent Republicans lost their congressional seats, which gave Democrats five of nine House seats.

If losing elections is considered stealing, Republicans need to take a few notes from late Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago on the proper way.

The Indiana law was designed to prevent voter fraud during elections. According to the Public Education Initiative concerning the new ID requirement, written by Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, published Oct. 13, 2005, the goal of this law was "to improve the integrity of Indiana elections."

In the time leading up to the May 2006 Primary Election, the state was to make the public aware of the new law through "a combination of mass marketing, direct marketing, in-person training and strategic partnerships."

The state of Indiana's message was clear: "Go (to) the polls; bring photo ID; vote with confidence." Somehow these simple instructions — which are in no way a burden to the American voter, caused attorney Paul Smith — representing the challengers, to say during oral arguments as reported by USA Today on Jan. 9, "This is the most strict law in the country."

As reported by USA Today, During oral arguments Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher said, "I think it's also terribly significant that we don't have anybody in front of this court ... who's injured by this law."

The Indiana League of Woman Voters had one woman parading around for opposition to the Indiana ID law, but according to the Fort Wayne Daily News, on Jan. 9, Faye Buis-Ewing was dropped by the ILWV in their cause. Ewing claimed to be a 50-year resident of Indiana, even though she and her husband spend winters at their own property in Florida.

In the days before oral arguments, it was discovered Ewing had become a registered voter in Florida on Sept. 18, 2002. Daily News stated, Ewing "signed an oath that she was a Florida resident and understood that falsifying the voter application was a third-degree felony punishable by prison and a fine up to $5,000."

Being registered to vote in Indiana and Florida makes Ewing a potential felon.

A decision in this case will be rendered by the Supreme Court during the summer months, which will affect all citizens of the United States; however, let's be realistic.

Citizens of this country are asked to present ID every day across the country. We are asked when we use a credit card, purchase alcohol or tobacco, when pulled over by the police or even applying for a job. Asking for an ID is not a burden. Asking voters to pay a poll tax disenfranchises them — asking for an ID does not.

[ Back to Student Voices ]