Posted on 11/13/2006 4:18:17 PM PST by ShadowDancer
Mich. Supreme Court Weighs Requiring ID To Vote
POSTED: 4:41 pm EST November 13, 2006
The state Supreme Court weighed Monday whether voters can be required to show photo identification at the polls, an issue that has divided Democrats and Republicans for a decade.
At stake is the constitutionality of a 1996 state law, renewed last year, requiring voters to show photo ID to get a ballot. The law said that if voters don't have ID, they can sign an affidavit swearing to their identity and then vote.
The law hasn't taken effect because former Attorney General Frank Kelley, a Democrat, ruled nine years ago that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote.
Critics say the ID requirement would keep the poor, elderly, disabled and minorities away from the polls. But supporters, including Republicans, say it's needed to prevent election fraud.
No form of identification is now required to vote in Michigan.
The high court has agreed to issue an advisory opinion requested by the Republican-controlled state House, which means both sides of the issue were argued by Attorney General Mike Cox's office on Monday.
Assistant Attorney General Susan Leffler said requiring photo ID is a small burden for voters who often are asked to show ID in their everyday lives. She argued that making those without an ID sign an affidavit isn't much to ask to help prevent fraud and ensure confidence in the electoral process.
"I can't imagine a less minimal burden," Leffler said.
But Assistant Attorney General Ron Robinson said the law, which he called a "wolf in sheep's clothing," could harm 350,000 registered voters who don't have a driver's license or state-issued ID card. The law would automatically subject voters without identification to a challenge -- an inconvenient and embarrassing delay, Robinson said.
"This is an extreme response to a problem that does not exist in Michigan," he said of the ID requirement.
In response to a question from Justice Michael Cavanagh, Leffler acknowledged there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud but rather a "concern" about it.
Some justices on the GOP-controlled court questioned whether voters having to submit affidavits would automatically be challenged under the law. Justice Stephen Markman also said lawmakers have wanted to give registered voters who don't have an ID a state-issued card free of charge.
"Is it too much of a burden to get a free ID card and remember to bring it to the polls?" Markman asked.
The justices also grappled with what standard to apply when considering the state's interest in requiring photo ID: a tougher "strict scrutiny" test or the more lenient "rational basis" test.
The ID requirements in the 2005 law will take effect Jan. 1, but the court may rule later because there are no statewide elections coming up.
The case has attracted widespread interest, and the issue has flared up in other states. Groups or individuals who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs include both the Democratic and Republican parties, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, state legislative caucuses, the state elections bureau, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others.
There's something I would have liked to see on my ballot.
I for one know I DON'T like to be inconvenienced or embarrassed. :p
Or delayed even!
What is there to weigh? How do they know who is voting if they are not asking for id?
The End of The Democratic Party in Detroit, Saginaw, Flint and Lansing????
They still make all the votes they need during the counting process in Detroit.
Michigan is going to be a ghost State before the Dems are done with it.
Not at all. Proving who you are at the poll doesn't in any way insure that you are legally allowed to vote. Voter ID probably does little to stop the real voter fraud which is committed by fraudulent registrations, and fake voters. If Acorn was caught submitting thousands fake voter registrations who is to say that millions more don;t exist across the country. We could make a much bigger dent by verifying that all registered voter are eligible to vote.
This is not say we should not verify who a voter is at the polls,we must do everything we can to prevent voter fraud. But merely we are focusing our energy in the wrong place. I don't really like the idea of national voter registry, but we really need it.
If someone is so poor as to not have a Michigan Driver's License or Michigan State ID, then give them an ID when they register to vote!
I live in NJ, and I plan to leave as soon as humanely possible.
I thought it would be when they took a few thousand dead people off the registered voters list in Detroit earlier this year.
Ah, once again we see the soft bigotry of the Left.
It's so exciting to see "judges" trying to decide whether we should allow voter fraud or do what we can to stop it. I love this country!
It might inconvience a few criminals who haven't ever been arrested. They'd have to submit two thumb prints to get the ID.
There does not exist an effective system to insure that Dead Voters are taken off the rolls.
MI is so disgustingly RAT that there is no way this will pass. Sad.
Michigan's natural economic advantage isn't quite that big, though.
This sums it up perfectly. Those who oppose voter-ID laws are entirely unconcerned about voter fraud--no, more precisely, they would seem to be in favor of voter fraud, since it is the Democrats who regularly benefit from it.
But every illegal vote nullifies someone's legal vote. So those who claim to be the protectors of those who (allegedly) are victims of intimidation are actually ensuring that some of their votes are illegally cancelled.
Seems pretty simple, lets go to the ol' Constitution:
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
So, we have to prove we are 18 and older to vote. Thus we need proof of age and proof if ID(photo ID). Pretty simple, enforce the 26 Amendment!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.