Voter ID Law

by Meagan Dorsch

Does a state law that requires voters to show a government issued identification card before they vote, violate the U.S. constitution? The U.S. Supreme Court is asking that question as it reviews the state of Indiana's voter ID law.

We sit down with Michael Pitts, associate professor of law at Indiana University to talk about how difficult it could be for the Supreme Court to issue a clear ruling in this case and why some states have had voter ID laws challenged in a court of law.

Listen to our podcast (4:54) and log onto NCSL's Elections, Campaigns and Redistricting page for more information about voter identification laws.

Comments

[Todd Dugdale]

Under these proposed rules, I would have been deprived of my right to vote. Some years ago, I moved into a new apartment in November. It takes six weeks (at least) for a new ID to arrive by mail, so even if I had gone down to the courthouse the very day I signed the lease, I would not have had a state-issued photo ID to present at the polls on November 4. I didn't even have a utility bill yet; who would four days after moving in? I had someone who was registered vouch for me at the polls, which would not be allowed under these new laws.

Of course, I could have travelled back to my old state and voted illegally under false pretenses with my state-issued photo ID. So how does this prevent fraud again? I would have been allowed to vote in a state I didn't even live in, but not allowed to vote where I did live because an ID couldn't arrive in time.

I'm not saying this is stupid, just that it's ridiculous. A photo ID does not prove citizenship, and neither does it prove the lack of a felonious criminal record. It does not even prove that you live at the address shown on the ID, only that you did at some point in time. And with identity theft as prevalent as it is, a photo ID doesn't even prove that you are you.

So it proves nothing except that you can keep citizens who moved in November from voting if you really want to. Hooray!