Voter ID Laws: The Minority Perspective
Jared Ham writes:
In researching voter ID laws and their effect on voter turnout, particularly that of minority groups (e.g., African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans), I found very little literature that discussed the perspective of those who voter ID laws affect the most. The literature broadly categorizes the people affected by voter ID laws; it all seems to be very impersonal and detached. While this is important for scholarly literature, it is equally important to recognize that these laws have real effects on real people. In order to gain greater insight into the perspective of the real people affected, I contacted several organizations that work with these people on a daily basis. After contacting the ACLU, NAACP, MALDEF, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Brennan Center for Justice, and Advancement Project, I only heard back from MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund).
I had the opportunity to interview Luis Figueroa, a legislative attorney at MALDEF. Mr. Figueroa told me that when the people at MALDEF first saw the implementation of restrictive voter ID laws in 2005 (in Indiana), they had concerns regarding the identification requirements given that there is long history of using ID laws to disenfranchise voters—especially minorities—in this country. When other states introduced these voter ID laws and identification requirements, the people at MALDEF realized that there was a concerted effort across the nation to find new ways to disenfranchise minority voters.
Mr. Figueroa went on to express that the people at MALDEF and the Hispanic community as a whole is convinced that voter ID laws place an undue burden on Hispanic voters and that the more restrictive the laws, the more burdensome they are. This burden placed on Hispanic and other minority voters has an extreme negative impact on Hispanic communities. Hispanic communities tend to be very young. Therefore, if these laws deem student IDs unacceptable forms of identification, the Hispanic community is immensely affected. Moreover, there is a low homeowner rate among individuals in the Hispanic community and that Hispanics move relatively often from one residence to another. Therefore, they are immensely affected if the laws mandate that the address on identification must match another document. He later explained that the burden could be mitigated if states provided free identification and birth certificates. While many states claim to provide free identification for those who do not have it, this largely is not the case. The infamous case of Dorothy Cooper demonstrates that the states still place an undue burden on individuals trying to obtain an acceptable form of identification. Mr. Figueroa echoed the beliefs of many Americans, proclaiming, “strict voter ID laws will impact Hispanic and minority voters to a greater extent than Caucasian voters.”
When I asked Mr. Figueroa how he would respond to proponents of voter ID laws and their argument that the purpose of voter ID laws is to prevent voter fraud, he pointed out that the laws actually do very little to reduce voter fraud. Voter ID laws do not address the most prevalent forms of voter fraud (e.g., voter registration misconduct) while the laws do address the least common form of voter fraud—voter impersonation. He also indicated that the occurrence of all forms of voter fraud is extremely rare. He cited the Carter-Baker Commission report, which identified fifty-two voter fraud convictions between 2002 and 2005. As the Brennan Center report analysis indicates, this would result in a federal election voter fraud rate of 0.00003%. In other words, Americans are more likely to be killed by lightning than commit voter fraud.
I proceeded to ask Mr. Figueroa his thoughts concerning Attorney General Eric Holder’s assertion that voter ID laws are effectively a “Jim Crow poll tax.” He responded that MALDEF is supportive of Mr. Holder’s efforts in fighting voter ID laws and greatly appreciative of his aggressive efforts to fight discrimination. He added that MALDEF would continue to support the Department of Justice in their efforts. He then told me that MALDEF has been very involved in fighting against discrimination and the voter ID laws, particularly the fights in Texas, Kansas, and Arizona. When necessary MALDEF has brought litigation in states such as Texas and Arizona on behalf of the Hispanic community. He added that MALDEF has been and continues to be very active in forming coalitions with other organizations who are dedicated to fighting voter ID laws and discrimination. On the legislative side, MALDEF works in a coalition with many women voting groups, AARP, NAACP, ACLU, and disability rights groups. On the litigation side, MALDEF has co-counseled with many of the same groups.
Perhaps I’m being nitpicky, but would we be able to use free identification given at birth, which would be issued before people’s faces have fully developed?
Recently I’ve been hearing more and more about the Republican Party shifting towards immigration reform (which many believe is to gain a broader voting base). Assuming that these Voter ID Laws are occurring in more conservative states, do you think this shift will have any effect on the lifespan of these laws as the Republican party also makes this shift? Or do you think the Voter ID Laws would persist despite a more general political movement towards immigration reform?
Kyle,
I don’t understand your question fully. I don’t think anyone is proposing using free identification given at birth. The free forms of identification that are generally provided by the states are similar to driver’s licenses. The problem with this is that some people have to travel upwards of 200 to 250 miles to the nearest government office to obtain identification. To put this in perspective, that distance is equivalent to the distance from Ithaca to New York City. The Texas Court deemed this an “undue burden” placed on people, particularly poor people and minorities, and struck down the Texas Voter ID law. I encourage you to read more about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/court-blocks-tough-voter-id-law-in-texas.html?_r=0
I also encourage you to read the story (the link is in my blog) about Dorothy Cooper and her difficulties obtaining a “free” government issued identification.
Christina,
You pose a great question. It is true that some of the Republican Party (led by Senators Flake, McCain, Rubio, and Graham) have made it a priority to address comprehensive immigration reform. They hope that by doing so they will gain the support of many Latinos. The effect that this will have, however, is uncertain. I cannot really comment on if this change in some of the Republican Party’s position on immigration and the pathway to citizenship will affect Voter ID laws. Anything, at this point, would be mere speculation. I will say that the state legislatures in most states where Voter ID laws are present are currently controlled by the Republican Party and will continue to be for some time. This indicates to me that these Voter ID laws, at least in the short term, are here to stay. There is a silver lining though! Many groups such as MALDEF, NAACP, and ACLU are not looking to the state legislatures to overturn or repeal the Voter ID laws, they are looking to the judicial branch. Through a coordinated effort, these groups are fighting Voter ID laws in the courts. In fact, courts have struck down or delayed the implementation of Voter ID laws in several states (e.g., Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin). I apologize I did not give the answer you were looking for; I guess we’ll have to wait and see.
Really interesting topic, Jared, one I knew unfortunately little about. The argument that laws like these are necessary to guard against mischief is an awfully familiar one, when the need isn’t really there and it’s just used as means to other ends. The fifty two convictions in three years and lightning statistic definitely put that into perspective haha.
Regarding the Republicans and the state legislatures, the environmental fight is pretty much in the same situation on the coal front, and has actually leaned on the same strategy, turning to the courts instead. In that case, however, the legislators’ policies on coal don’t directly help or hinder their ability to hold office (which is to say they are still, theoretically, accountable by the judgement of their constituency, including those who may oppose the policies, as they should be). The Voter ID case is particularly sad in that it is probably literally keeping people from voting for officials that might change those laws. Sounds like a terrible feedback loop. I think I’m reading that right, please correct me if I’m wrong.
We’re afforded so little opportunity to participate directly in our democracy, a right as fundamental as voting should definitely be made as accessible as possible for every American. Something I plan to look into more.