The U.S. Justice Department on Friday approved a controversial Georgia law requiring photo identification to vote at the polls, and its opponents immediately vowed to challenge the measure in federal court. ...
Nineteen states require voters to show identification, but only five request photo ID, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Those states - Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and South Dakota - allow voters without a photo ID to use other forms of identification or sign an affidavit of identity.
There has been some angry blogging about this law, including those that basically imply that "The Justice Department has just given Georgia the go-ahead to disenfranchise anyone who doesn't have a driver's license." But, that's not true. First, though the coverage simply does not tell me what they are, there are six acceptable forms of photo identification.* Second, one is allowed to submit a provisional ballot and show id later.
Third, though it is noted that only about a third of the counties have places to get them, those without a driving license can get a non-driver's license identification -- free of charge if they are poor, elderly, or only going to use it to vote. No id is needed to vote ("no-excuse") absentee, a logical way for older black voters to vote. Finally, efforts are underway already to have "roving" license boards going to nursing homes and the like to deal with those who vote and might not have driving licenses.
The basic problem seems to be that the law is not necessary, as noted by the Secretary of State, and failure to point out one case of voting fraud that such a law would prevent. Likewise, it is seen as a racist throwback with comments like "Sen. Vincent Fort (D-Atlanta) said he could not forget those who 'bled, sweated and died' for his right to vote and serve in elected office" fairly prevalent in some quarters. Finally, the FEC in the past as well as a few court decisions have noted that these measures disproportionately burden minorities.
The law on some level appears to me legitimate. It is generally a good idea to have an official photo id, since these days so many places require them. This raises the availability problem -- that it is harder for some voters, especially the elderly (who also would be more sensitive to this issue given past limitations), to get them in Georgia. And, apparently, some efforts are being made in that department. The provisional ballot is an important, if still possibly risky, check as well. I truly wonder how many would be harmed.
But, the key thing seems to be the symbolism. The need for an id card to vote is a red flag, especially for those who suffered a history of discrimination. Thus, other states with photo id requirements were sure to insert exceptions and other means of identification. The fact there is no major, or even minor, problem of voter fraud helped by this law also makes it problematic. Thus, even if the class of people who will suffer is relatively small, the cost/benefit ratio is low.
The uniqueness (another state apparently also recently passed this sort of law, and a few others might follow) of the law also is troubling. Federal approval was a dubious move and might be overturned by the courts. And, yes, the support by the state Republicans was questionable, and worthy of flagging. But, symbolism aside, I'm not sure how many will be that upset about the law.
---
* This is just plain wrong. Let us say we take someone like a person I know who does not yet have a driver's license, but until recently had an active college id to a county community college. Does this count?