Democrats file briefs in voter ID case

AP via ContraCostTimes.com ^ | 07/18/2006 | KATHY BARKS HOFFMAN

[oxcart]

LANSING, Mich. - The Michigan Democratic Party, the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus and the Democratic caucuses in the state House and Senate filed a friend-of-the-court brief Tuesday in a case that could decide whether Michigan can require voters to show photo identification at the polls.

The Michigan Supreme Court in April voted 5-2 to issue an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a 1997 state law requiring voters to show photo identification to get a ballot. A court spokeswoman said the ruling will be binding, although it could be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Former Attorney General Frank Kelley, a Democrat, issued an opinion nine years ago that the law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees U.S. citizens the right to vote.

Opponents of the law say the requirement would keep poor people, non-drivers and others away from the polls. They cite figures showing that about 370,000 of the state's registered voters do not have a driver's license or state ID card.

But supporters say the law is needed to prevent election fraud. The U.S. Justice Department, for example, has been investigating allegations that Detroit votes were cast last year in the names of dead people.

Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis supports the requirement, noting that Indiana recently began requiring photo ID. Although Democrats in that state are challenging the law and say they received hundreds of complaints about the new requirement, Anuzis said that can largely be chalked up to the learning curve.

"From the things that I read, apparently things went very well. There weren't any hitches," he said.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the Detroit chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, Kelley and several county clerks also are filing briefs with the court opposing the photo ID requirement.

They say the move to require photo ID is aimed at keeping poor and minority voters, who tend to support Democratic candidates, from being able to vote, and they say worries about fraud are overblown.

"Voter impersonation at the polls - which is the only form of electoral fraud addressed by the photo identification requirement - is a nonexistent problem," the Michigan Democratic Party wrote in its brief.

Party Chairman Mark Brewer said in a news release that "this Republican law will have the same practical result as a poll tax; it will lead to the suppression of the vote of the poor, racial and ethnic minorities, and elderly and disabled voters."

"In an election year the people of Michigan need to be especially vigilant in ensuring all election-oriented efforts are not a partisan power grab," he added.

But Anuzis rejected those arguments, noting that the House already has passed a bill offering anyone who couldn't afford to pay $10 fee to obtain a state ID card the chance to get one for free. The bill now is before the Senate Committee on Government Operations.

"If you want to vote, you can get an ID card. It doesn't keep anyone away from the polls," he said.

The high court has asked Republican Attorney General Mike Cox to submit separate briefs, one arguing that the law is constitutional and the other arguing it is unconstitutional. The court also invited the state Bureau of Elections, Michigan Democratic Party and Michigan Republican Party to file arguments. It has yet to hear oral arguments in the case.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Marcia McBrien has said the court will decide whether the state law is constitutional on its face. She added that parties could challenge the state law in federal court.

[Kay Ludlow]

Yes, non-citizens get utility bills, too, but they have to also show up on the list of registered voters.

So they register by mail (as I did), checking the box that says they are a legal citizen. They go to the polls with a utility bill (as I did because I haven't changed my street address on my license since the PO box remains the same) and are permitted to vote. No evidence of citizenship is necessary in PA, that's for sure. That may become an issue in Hazleton, but it has to be an issue in those states with a high number of illegals, unless they have laws on voting stricter than PA.

[Purrcival]

Scary.