Rick Hasen, who blogs about election law and has a forthcoming book on the "voting wars" and a sneak peek on the "The Fraudulent Fraud Squad" [I originally noted the $2 sample chapter download; there is a smaller sample provided for free; I still find the $2 cost silly for a work of this sort.] summarizes:
1. Republican legislature passes voter identification law making spurious claims about how such a law is necessary to prevent voter fraud.This has received national attention, including from Eric Holder, whose Justice Department rejected more than one new law in states covered by the Voting Rights Act. Anyway, Hasen's basic conclusion is that such laws might not do much (it's hard to tell) overall, but given the selective partisan nature of the support and that a fundamental right is at stake, they still are a bad idea overall. The burden is on the other side.
2. Democrats and good government groups object, arguing the measure is intended to suppress Democratic votes (true), and file lawsuits.
3. Democrats exaggerate the likely effects of the voter identification requirement on voter turnout.
4. Courts split on the legal question, often along the party lines of the judges.
This "both sides aren't equally wrong" principle is shown over and over again in modern day political battles, leading me to quite tired by the "each side does it" brigade that butt in from time to time, suggesting you know they are just stating some neutral viewpoint and all, understanding how people like myself (you know, Obama loving partisans) can be passionate by one side in particular. I lay it on a bit thick for emphasis.
#3 is notable too. Those who support rights tend to "exaggerate" somewhat. People for a certain cause are not known to be totally neutral about it. They often speak in broad terms, sometimes citing parades of horribles about let's say free speech. You know, ban obscenity and next the orgasm scene from When Harry Met Sally would be banned (after all, the film Carnal Knowledge was an early target, leading to Usurper Court review to say "well, we didn't mean that"). This has some force, if a certain degree of perspective is held. The other side well earned their distrust.
I recognize Prof. Hasen's overall argument and that he is on "our" side here, but it still warrants a reminder that the reference needs a bit of context. For instance, he earlier referenced a NPR interview with someone who supports voter ids, particularly because people show it to cash checks and so forth. [If he means picture ids, I don't. I use a bank card. If I gave it to someone with my password, they could cash checks without showing id.] Since the issue is that (1) voting is more important than cashing checks and (2) the type of id allowed (3) etc., this was not very helpful to me. In fact, it was annoying, since it avoided the hard questions. The interviewer, per usual, didn't follow-up. Grr.
I look forward to the book, but will not spend $2 for a sample. Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow (see her blog etc.) provides a video introduction to her upcoming book and a sample is provided gratis. I reserved the book at my library along with one by Ms. Ledbetter, interviewed on her show.