I can’t say I’ve been following the Indiana voting rights case before the Supreme Court closely. As I understand it, Indiana, my home state, passed a law requiring photo IDs for voters.
The law has been challenged in court, and has made its way to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments earlier this week. As explained in this excellent discussion by two Slate writers, the reaction of the justices suggest that the court will not only uphold Indiana’s law but will use the case as precedent to deny hearings to similar cases where harm to plaintiffs is “facial” (which basically means “not yet proven”) as opposed to “as applied” (harm that can be proven.) So kind of a twofer for the forces of darkness.
I have debated with some of my conservative friends these voting rights issues. Mostly, I have heard some variation of the “not my problem” argument, that is, if a voting restriction isn’t a problem for me, it’s not a problem for anyone.
Requiring photo ID for voters may sound reasonable to some, but it effectively disenfranchises those who for whatever reason, do not have such ID. For those of us in a certain economic group, having a photo ID is no big deal. For some people, it could be a barrier to voting. I think that’s a bad thing, just in principle.
On the other side are those who argue without photo ID, you could end up with voter fraud. Of course, in arguing the case, the state of Indiana could not come up with a single case of voter fraud. I would say that indicates how big a problem that is.
In any case, I think the Slate video is an informative and interesting discussion of the case and the issues around it. And it’s a little chilling, too. Right around the 6:00 mark the discussion starts to really illustrate how a far-right Supreme Court is beginning to undermine some of the basic historical concepts of justice in the United States.
2 comments:
It is true that voter fraud has not been identified as problem in Indiana, however I do not believe that this is logical reasoning for not addressing a potential issue. Would one not employ a smoke detector in a home just because there has never been a fire there.
My issue is not necessarily the reasonable debate of this subject but the continued abuse of the terminology. Miriam Webster defines disenfranchised as; to deprive of franchise, of a legal right or of some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote. Miriam Webster also defines justice; the quality of being just, impartial, or fair.
I fail to see the applications of these terms to this debate. No one will, or has been by its application, been denied the right to vote by this law. The law simple requires identification that is issued by the state to confirm your identity. A drivers license is all that is necessary and state identification cards are available for those who do not have, or can not qualify for, a drivers license. At the most this qualifies as an inconvenience not a violation of ones rights. Using this logic wouldn’t one be disenfranchised because they could not afford to travel to the polling place? Are these voters entitled to free transportation? I believe it is a giant leap of interpretation to call this disenfranchising voters.
As for undermining justice, there has to be an injustice before this can occur. Again to call this an injustice is a leap of interpretation. Is this Supreme Court a rouge court or does that distinction belong to preceding Supreme Courts. Obviously this depends upon ones political views but I would suggest that it is just as likely that the court is experiencing a correction not a down turn.
It's interesting to hear the comments on the Slate video because they point out how this issue is seen so differently by those on opposing sides. I'll just say that overall, I do think its an injustice when people are deprived of the right to vote, whatever the reason. And I disagree that no one will be affected by this law. Probably not a large number of people, but to me, the number is not the point.
The reason why we buy smoke detectors is that houses do, on a fairly frequent basis, catch on fire. If it never happened, or if it happened exceedingly rarely, you would not see people buying smoke detectors. Since voter fraud is so exceedingly rare, I don't see the need for a questionable law such as Indiana's.
We can also agree to disagree about the SC. When a court starts dismantling decades of precedence, and turning its back on established law, then something is going on. Good or bad depends on your point of view, I suppose. But it's interesting that conservatives rail against activist courts except when it's one they agree with.
Post a Comment