The Supreme Court Should Not Uphold the Modern Day Poll Tax

01.09.08

by Jon Greenbaum

Today the Supreme Court heard argument in two consolidated challenges to an Indiana law that requires in-person voters to show government-issued photo identification in order to vote. The petitioners claim that the law violates the fundamental right to vote contained within the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The oral argument reinforced some problems with the law, as well as with the lower court decisions that found in Indiana’s favor, including the following:

First, although Indiana contends that the statute was passed to prevent voter fraud, the attorney for the state admitted that Indiana can provide no examples of the only type of voter fraud that an identification requirement prevents: where one person impersonates another.

Second, the Indiana law is unnecessarily restrictive in the identification it permits. Justice Kennedy asked whether Indiana could have passed a less restrictive law that would accomplish the same purpose of preventing voter impersonation. As the petitioners’ counsel pointed out, other states have developed alternate methods of preventing voter impersonation, such as allowing voters who do not have identification to sign an affidavit attesting to their identity, or allowing for additional kinds of identification, such as a utility bill, bank statement or government check.

Third, both sides agree that some voters are burdened by the law because they lack the required identification (the parties disagree on the number of those impacted). Most of the affected voters are from the most vulnerable groups in our society - the elderly, poor, and/or minorities. The nonpartisan Election Protection program and other similar programs would have to educate and guide these voters through the morass created by the identification requirement.

Fourth, whether Indiana’s voter identification law is an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote is a fact-intensive issue and requires a full trial on the merits. The district court’s determination that the case should not go to trial was improper.

It is difficult to determine what a majority of the Supreme Court will decide in this matter. We can only hope that the Court will recognize the importance of the fundamental right to vote, as it did in finding the poll tax unconstitutional decades ago. Indiana’s modern-day poll tax is just as wrong.

Click here to read the Lawyers’ Committee’s Amicus Brief.