From The Hotline Latest Edition for Tuesday, April 29,2008

THE FIELD

Identity Crisis

Tue. Apr. 29, 2008


IN election officials "were spared a mad scramble to rewrite Election Day rules" 4/28 when the SCOTUS "said the state can require voters to show photo IDs before casting a ballot. The 6-3 ruling "came a week before the most hard-fought" WH primary campaign in IN since '68, "and voter turnout is expected to be unusually high." Other states "have similar laws," but IN's is the nation's strictest (Smith, Fort Wayne Journal Gazette, 4/29).


In its ruling, the court concluded that the challengers "failed to prove that the law's photo ID requirement placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote." Voting experts "said the ruling was likely to complicate election administration, leading to both more litigation and more legislation," at least in states with GOP legislative majorities, "but would probably have a limited impact" on WH'08 voting.


Six states in addition to IN -- FL, GA, HI, LA, MI and SD -- "now require voters to provide" photo ID before casting a ballot (Greenhouse, New York Times, 4/29). "The ruling is a clear victory" for GOPers "who have pushed for such laws to combat election fraud," and "comes over the objections" of Dems, "who say the requirements make it too hard for some people to vote" (Savage, Los Angeles Times, 4/29).


"It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed" the '00 election for Pres. Bush. But the new ruling "lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked" the '00 case (Sherman, AP, 4/28).


The court "was weighing in on what has been a little-noticed but bitter struggle" between Dems and GOPers "over fraud and voters' access to the voting booth." In recent years, AZ and GA also have enacted ID laws, and the ruling "will likely push other states to follow suit." Voting-rights groups and Dems "were outraged by the ruling, though with liberal stalwart Justice John Paul Stevens writing the controlling opinion, they were hard-pressed to blame partisanship" (Dinan, Washington Times, 4/29).


The opinion "helps set a standard for the" '08 elections and "gives a green light to the kind of aggressive antifraud efforts favored" by many GOPers (Richey, Christian Science Monitor, 4/29).


"At the margins," the ruling "might hurt" Dem vote totals because recent immigrants and low-income citizens "are thought to be more likely to lack the required credentials. There could also be more impact on the many new voters drawn to the political process" by the WH'08 race. But the evidence "is far from clear that voter-ID rules will turn away considerable numbers of voters," as Dems claim. Likewise, "proof that in-person voter fraud is a significant issue," as GOPers allege, "also is scant" (Bravin/Farnam, Wall Street Journal, 4/29). "To date, neither side has come up with the data to prove its case" (Wolf/Biskupic, USA Today, 4/29).

An Obummer For Obama?


The Hill's Bolton writes that the SCOTUS ruling hands Barack Obama "a serious setback days before a pivotal primary battle" in IN. Critics of the ruling "argued the voter ID law would disproportionately affect African-Americans and 18- to 34-year-old voters, two important constituents for Obama." But the law "also places a burden on elderly voters, who have tended to support" Hillary Clinton, "though to a lesser degree than it affects" black and young voters.


In a recent study conducted by the Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity and Race "found" that 18% of IN's black registered voters do not have a valid photo ID. The group also found that 20% of registered voters 18 to 34 years old also do not have valid IDs (4/29).

Comment Cards


WH Dems, both of whom pushed an unsuccessful Senate resolution in '05 that said photo ID requirements should be rejected, commented on the voter ID ruling.


Obama: "I disagree with the decision, but we're going to do everything we can i nour campaign ... so that people at the state level can exercise the franchise."


Clinton: "I have questions about it. Now obviously, the law's the law, and has to be followed, but I hope it doesn't in any way supress or deter voter turnout" (Kansas City Star, 4/29).