A Blow to Voter ID

A judge's ruling in Pennsylvania undermines the rationale for voter ID

One of the insidious things about calling North Carolina’s Voter Information Verification Act what it’s generally referred to as — the Voter ID law — is that it tends to obscure all the ways it restricts the franchise other than requiring people to show a photo ID.

There’s the elimination of pre-registration for high school students, for which no one has offered an adequate explanation. There’s the “compacting of the calendar,” Gov. McCrory’s euphemism of choice for the law’s reduction of early voting times. There’s the elimination of same-day voter registration.

The law is loaded with all kinds of measures that serve to tamp down the vote among students, minorities and others who tend to vote Democratic. If the law merely required voters to show a photo ID at the polls, it wouldn’t be quite so outrageous or inspire so much blowback.

Which makes this Pennsylvania judge’s ruling even more encouraging, since it strikes at the heart of the photo ID requirement itself (from the AP via the N&O):

A Pennsylvania judge on Friday struck down a requirement that nearly all of the state's 8.2 million voters show photo identification at the polls, saying it imposes an unreasonable burden on the right to vote and that officials failed to demonstrate the need for it.

“Voting laws are designed to assure a free and fair election; the Voter ID Law does not further this goal,” state Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard L. McGinley wrote in a decision that set the stage for a potential courtroom showdown before the state's highest court.

McGinley, a Democrat, said the law is unconstitutional, because it does not require that a valid photo ID be convenient and available to voters.

“As a constitutional prerequisite, any voter ID law must contain a mechanism for ensuring liberal access to compliant photo IDs so that the requirement … does not disenfranchise valid voters,” McGinley wrote.

As I’ve argued before, if lawmakers were serious about not restricting the franchise, they’d institute a mail option or other form of outreach to poor and elderly people who lack IDs and can’t easily travel. Instead, they’re told to head down to the DMV — not that easy an option for someone with no car and limited mobility.

The judge’s ruling establishes additional precedent for the law’s overturn, although God only knows if that’ll happen. Regardless, I’m starting to get the sense that the rationale for the law is beginning to crumble — and that the legislators who crafted the law know it (from the N&O):

In federal court filings this month, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Justice Department and others who are suing the governor, state legislators and N.C. election board members sought a court order for email and other correspondence.

Thirteen legislators, all Republicans, have tried to quash subpoenas requiring them to produce any documents they created or received concerning the “rationale, purpose and implementation” of House Bill 589.

Sen. Phil Berger, leader of the state Senate, was among the group, as was Thom Tillis, the speaker of the House. Others include Sen. Bob Rucho of Mecklenburg County, Rep. Ruth Samuelson of Mecklenburg, Rep. Larry Pittman of Concord and Rep. David Lewis, the Harnett County Republican who helped lead the 2011 redrawing of legislative and congressional districts being challenged in court.

They contend they are protected by “legislative immunity” and should be “free from arrest or civil process for what they do in legislative proceedings.” The leaders also argue that legislative immunity frees legislators “not only from the consequences of litigation, it also frees them ‘from the burden of defending themselves.’”

“Free from arrest?” “Defending themselves?” The plaintiffs are just asking for what undoubtedly are public documents. Are Berger, Tillis, et al, really that concerned about the consequences of the sun shining on those “email(s) and other correspondence”?

And if so, what does that tell you?