Sep 8, 2011 6:43am

State Voter ID Laws Draw National Scrutiny

ABC News’ Michael Ono reports:

The Department of Justice is reviewing, and has the power to reject a controversial new law passed in South Carolina that requires a registered voter to present a government -issued photo ID before his or her vote is counted.

Gov. Nikki Haley signed the bill into law in May and she’s not alone. Four other states have passed similar voter ID laws in 2011, including Wisconsin, Texas, Tennessee and Kansas. But thanks to the DOJ, South Carolina’s law could still be rejected by federal officials.

And while other states have passed voter photo ID laws in the past, the laws passed in 2011 are by far the strictest with the exception of the law passed in 2005 by the state of Indiana.

Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act empowers the DOJ to review election laws passed in select southern states as well as Alaska and some counties throughout the country.  Crafted in a time of great racial stife, the act was meant to codify the power of the 15th Amendment, which forbids racial discrimination at the polling booth.

South Carolina, which is subject to federal review, is the only state to have petitioned the Obama Justice Department for approval while other states such as Texas opted to clear their law through the D.C. District Court, which is also permitted.

Critics of a stricter photo ID law argue that the requirement will make it tougher for poor and minority voters to cast their ballot while proponents call it a common sense provision.

Voters without the means to produce correct documents or the disabled can verify their identity through an affidavit but many still see the ID requirements as too burdensome.

“A number of state legislatures have taken up these bills and I think that it’s a growing concern nationally that the effect is going to be the suppression of the vote,” said Victoria Middleton, executive director for the South Carolina ACLU.

Republicans, in 2010, swept state legislatures across the country and have used the ensuing authority to pass various controversial measures, including laws that restrict funding to Planned Parenthood at the state level.

As for why the Obama Justice Department might be interested in the South Carolina law, fewer eligible minority voters could hurt the president because they tend to vote Democratic.

“These kinds of voter ID laws could make a difference on the margins and President Obama is fighting for every last percentage he can get,” said David Wasserman, a political analyst for the Cook Political Report.

As many as 11 percent of the voting population, or about 21 million people, do not have access to a government issued ID, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.  Still, studies highlighted by the Heritage Foundation show that photo ID laws have no effect on minority voter turnout.

Wisconsin College students voting in their local college towns might also have trouble voting because the new voter ID law in Wisconsin require the ID to show an address that matches their voting precinct when many students will have an ID that comes from their hometown.

“It’s a significant impediment to a lot more casual younger voters,” Wasserman said.

And the college city of Madison, Wis., generates the state’s largest number of Democratic votes, according to Wasserman.

Still, there are many who like the new voter ID laws and disapprove of the DOJ’s inquiry, arguing that the federal government has no business in “pre-clearing” state election laws.

“It’s a historical artifact of the civil rights era,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. “The idea that South Carolina needs to be treated today by the federal government is absurd.”

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said, “The kind of widespread discrimination that occurred just doesn’t happen today.”

Some Democratic politicians aren’t so sure. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois will hold hearings on the new laws today in the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights.  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is the ranking Republican member on that Subcommittee and will attend the hearing.

User Comments

New, stricter voter ID laws to solve……..what problem? There haven’t been any instances of voter fraud at the ballot box. Where someone shows up to vote and has been proven to be using a fake name or ID. Republicans are willing to stop 10,000 LEGAL American voters from voting, to POSSIBLY stop ONE illegal vote. Come on. We ALL know WHY these REPUBLICAN-led states are doing this. It’s not rocket science. They want to prevent certain demographics from voting, Demographics that traditionally vote Democratic. They want to suppress Democratic votes. And they’ll likely get away with it……………..

Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 8:12 am 8:12 am

I have no problem showing my ID. I even have a birth certificate. You know, the one that says “certificate of live birth”.

Posted by: howdymo1 | September 8, 2011, 8:20 am 8:20 am

nikki Haley and South Carolina are so far to the right it’s ridiculous. Voter ID laws stop poor blacks from voting. With the amount of blacks in South Carolina, it’s absolutely amazing that all the politicians in that state are stingy, right-wing Republicans

Posted by: Bob | September 8, 2011, 8:31 am 8:31 am

I think it’s a great idea. Didn’t South Carolina say they would send people to the homes of those who could not get out and take their pictures?

Posted by: lovestoread | September 8, 2011, 8:40 am 8:40 am

This Voter ID is too burdensome is just pure bunk! You have to have an ID to cash a check, open a bank account, and many other things in life. This is a starw man argument by the DOJ that it is too burdensome… What they are really saying, is that it would make it too burdensome to illegally cast ballots. The poor can’t afford ID cards…Get Real, the GOP have sponsored legislation for publically funded ID cards that would squelch that bogus argument. They would even provide the logistics to make it happen. The real problem is that these illegal residents and felons will no longer be able to vote or people may not be able to vote more than once.

Posted by: John in VA | September 8, 2011, 8:52 am 8:52 am

Why do so many democrats think that minorities are stupid and can’t figure out how to get an id? Are these the people that you want to represent you? The ones who think that you need to be cared for because you are so clueless that you can’t take care of yourself? Pathetic.

Posted by: Amy | September 8, 2011, 8:55 am 8:55 am

Searambler, open your eyes. In the last 2 elections in Minnesota when the counts were scrutinized, there were more votes than voters in some districts (coincidentally Democratic heavy districts). People were voting more than once. And the numbers were large enough to swing the election (the number of excessive votes was greater than the gap between the winner and the loser). Now if you don’t look for it, you wont see it of course. So of course there is opposition to voter ID. With it, I know of at least 2 elections the Democrats would have probably lost lost. There is no other reason anyone would oppose this except if they want to be able to commit voter fraud. You are required to have an ID in this country, why don’t you need to show it to vote? Don’t we want to make sure that the voting is fair???

Posted by: pgdion | September 8, 2011, 8:58 am 8:58 am

Wasserman said “It’s a significant impediment to a lot more casual younger voters” —— O come on… what 16 year old is NOT going to run to the BMV and get their driver’s license?!?!?!? —— Also, in my state… if you can’t afford a license… or don’t drive… the state will issue you an ID for FREE!! —– Ms Wasserman is a typical progressive mouthpiece!!

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | September 8, 2011, 9:23 am 9:23 am

The number of voter fraud that were prosecuted were 86 people…the percent of voter fraud is less than 1% and it is totally unnecessary to do what the republicans are doing to make sure dems do not vote. Every person has the right to vote and what they are doing is preventing the elderly and the students from voting unless they have the i.d. they want. In Wisconsin and other states they are closing down voter registration stations in democratic areas or limiting the hours they are open while at the same time extending the hours in the rep. areas and adding more voting stations. If they are not afraid of Obama why is this necessary? Many elderly do not have a driver’s license anymore and have to have the i.d. they want so before they can vote..they must get some kind of i.d. which is permissable to them. Students who have always used their school i.d. card can no longer use it. It is stupid to think they can pass this to another because when you go to vote you must sign a registration book so if another tries to use it there is already a signature and this person will not be allowed to vote. They are doing everything and anything to prevent Obama from winning and this is so apparent. I cannot understand the statement that some were voting twice when you must sign your name before voting so how is this possible.?This is just nonesense. All this is is voter surpression for the elderly, the blacks, and the students and guess who they mostly vote for? What angers me the most is they are making the decisions as to who these people will vote for when in truth one never knows but they are taking no chances. This is unAmerican and dishonest and wrong..wrong..wrong.

Posted by: Pat from Georgia | September 8, 2011, 9:24 am 9:24 am

pgdion —– Again I ask: how many LEGAL voting Americans are you willing to STOP from voting? Because this law, while it may prevent a couple of voter fraud incidents, WILL stop legal Americans from casting votes. There are 22 million legal Americans who don’t have the requisite ID. I looked up Minnesota’s voter fraud history and found…..not much. A few cases of felons voting when they weren’t eligible. A couple cases of double voting. So how many thousands of legal voters is it OK to suppress for each case of real, actual fraud? Give me a number.

Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 9:27 am 9:27 am

Here’s an idea: If the state wants to require that you have a photo ID to vote, then have the various election offices give you a photo ID when you register to vote. Problem solved.

Posted by: WorkingClass | September 8, 2011, 9:31 am 9:31 am

Amy asked, “Why do so many democrats think that minorities are stupid and can’t figure out how to get an id?”

Amy, first of all, it isn’t just minorities that are affected. It is also the poor, the elderly, and college students. It’s not a question of being stupid. There are many reasons people don’t have a current, legal ID. My mother didn’t have a legal ID for the last 10 years of her life, after she stopped driving. Don’t make the assumption that only stupid people don’t have ID……….

Posted by: Searambler | September 8, 2011, 9:31 am 9:31 am

SeaRambler….”Republicans are willing to stop 10,000 LEGAL American voters from voting, to POSSIBLY stop ONE illegal vote.”……What was the vote differnece between Franken and Colemen in Minnesota – less than 1000? If that is the base, MAYBE Colemen would have won? We have to produce a picure ID for so many other activities. What is more important than voting? How hard is it REALLY to get a picture ID?

Posted by: deanbob | September 8, 2011, 9:31 am 9:31 am

Nothing wrong with showing ID, you have to to cash a check. What’s wrong Democrats can’t stand to have real elections with out stuffing the ballot box. Of course the DOJ will sue, they are just another political arm of this administration. They love killing American jobs by suing Boeing and their gestapo style raid on Gibson Guitars.

Posted by: Freedom | September 8, 2011, 9:33 am 9:33 am

Searambler 9:27 —- Of course the party that has a history of voter fraud bemoans a photo ID requirement! — What part of state issued FREE ID’s don’t you understand?? — You have to show a photo ID to fly in an airplane, buy alcohol, buy cigarettes (in some states), get a passport!! —- Your argument doesn’t hold water!!

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | September 8, 2011, 9:39 am 9:39 am

New, stricter voter ID laws to solve……..what problem? ——-to stop poor people from voting. We dont show an ID, we go and say where road we live in, and they have the census data and check off our names. Why an ID. If someone else tries to vote under your name THEN you need to show an ID, but unless there is evidence of fraud, such as two people try to vote with one name, why make everyone get an ID, like elderly who dont drive and would have a hard time going to the place to get their id, and poor people who have lack of transportation and the $50 to get the card is a hardship.

Posted by: whoopstheydiditagain | September 8, 2011, 9:41 am 9:41 am

Let’s just make sure they don’t start matching your ID with your vote like they do in some other “democratic” countries. Then the next administration withholds privileges, heath care, etc to citizens that did NOT vote for them.

Posted by: rshanna | September 8, 2011, 9:52 am 9:52 am

Noise legislation has beeen discussed.But let us see the context of this legislation.Europe was at the height of it’s industrial revolution,and the many accidents caused by machinery was an issue with trade unionists, and social reformers.There would have to be laws promoting safety in the work place.One issue of safety was the damage done to the ear by excessive noise.There was also the negative aesthetic value .That subjectively ,noise in excess was rejected by workers, the family, and the public.Thus laws were passed making excessive noise illegal.Not only for the physical damage done to the ear ,but for the removal of stress from the environment.Subsequently noise legislation has some times been use politically to silence objectors.But originally laws controlling noise, were part of the safety package demanded by trade unions, and social reformers,in Europe, during the industrial revolution.Peter Carlos Hinds.

Posted by: PETER CARLOS HINDS | September 8, 2011, 9:52 am 9:52 am

I live in Louisiana and we have to furnish a state issued ID to vote. It costs to get a state ID so I would imagine that is a burden on some people. I am sure that South Carolina has a motive for doing as they are and I’m sure it has mostly to do with supressing the minority vote. It IS South Carolina after all. And I seriously doubt that a huge amount of people are going to be out there casting illegal votes – for real people? I just think it is a shame that some people will go to such great lengths to try to sway elections.

Posted by: Saints Fan | September 8, 2011, 9:54 am 9:54 am

In WI, it costs $28 to get a state ID. The new voter law states if you cannot afford an ID, one will be given to you. Okay, that’s good so far. But, WI DOT also quietly put out a memo telling the offices not to offer free ID’s. The person has to know it’s possible in order to get a free ID. WI was also thinking of shutting down many of the DMV stations (where ID’s are issued), but decided against it. (Bad publicitiy.) The DMV station for my county just happens to be located in a rural area, without bus service. How can someone, without a driver’s license get to the DMV to get a state ID so they can vote? Yet, the WI Republicans are telling everyone this voter ID bill will just stop illegal votes. They don’t mention the voters who are poor, but then again, they often vote Democrat, so it doesn’t count. I’ve said it before, I often have voted Repubican in the past, but this independent will think long and hard before I vote Republican again.

Posted by: Catherine commentary | September 8, 2011, 9:54 am 9:54 am

Mexico has strict voter ID laws. It’s a simple requirement to instill faith in the electoral process. And to all the naysayers, yes, voter fraud has been a problem in the past. Remember ACORN???

Posted by: patrick | September 8, 2011, 9:55 am 9:55 am

Something has to be done, to assure that illegal immigrants are NOT voting.

I assure you, that they are NOW!

Posted by: Rick McDaniel | September 8, 2011, 10:03 am 10:03 am

Two hundred years ago, you had to be white, male, and wealthy in order to vote…. now we just ask for a photo ID…. big whoop!!

Posted by: TheLoyalOpposition | September 8, 2011, 10:05 am 10:05 am

Searambler | September 8, 2011, 9:31 am 9:31 am….Are you saying an expired drivers licvense is not good enough to use for a voter ID? Based on what?

Posted by: deanbob | September 8, 2011, 10:06 am 10:06 am

“Here’s an idea: If the state wants to require that you have a photo ID to vote, then have the various election offices give you a photo ID when you register to vote. Problem solved.” Problem NOT solved. What’s to stop someone from registering more than once in the same or even multiple districts with non-secure IDs? As to students, elderly, and poor not having IDs, everyone has or can get an ID of some sort whether it’s a college-issued student ID, a state-issued ID card, or some form of identification for collecting assistance. All this would do is replace, standardize, and make secure the different IDs already in existence. The left is always more than willing to push off the expenses of the poor onto the rich, so if people can’t afford the $10 or $20 to get one have the state waive the fee. At the very least this a standard secure ID card will simplify voter verification and help to cut down on fraud in other areas.

Posted by: Publius | September 8, 2011, 10:08 am 10:08 am

“How can someone, without a driver’s license get to the DMV to get a state ID so they can vote?” By the same token, how can someone without a driver’s license get to the voter registration stations so that they can vote in the first place?

Posted by: Publius | September 8, 2011, 10:13 am 10:13 am

There is no valid argument for not having an ID card. These are all straw man arguments that have no validity. The only purpose not to produce an ID at the polls is either fraud or pure apathy. You have to have an ID to cash a check, most legislation provides free photo ID for thos e that can’t afford it. As far as the college students, I was issued a student ID card with picture that can go with my Driver’s license or othe photo ID to show my residence. These are all fake arguments, the real goal on the left is to allow people to vote regardless of their legal status to cast a ballot. Get an ID and stop belly aching! The after election reports often show that more people vote than are actually registered, especially in democratic districts. Remember ACORN voter registration last cycle.

Posted by: John in VA | September 8, 2011, 10:45 am 10:45 am

“Problem NOT solved. What’s to stop someone from registering more than once in the same or even multiple districts with non-secure IDs?” — The same thing that stops someone from register more than once now. They check the records to see if you’re already registered. If you are, you don’t get to register again. and if you register under another name and address, then having a photo ID wouldn’t stop you from voting twice either.

Posted by: WorkingClass | September 8, 2011, 11:18 am 11:18 am

You need A photo I.D to cash a check or to use a credit card,and the left whine that the “poor ” cant afford I.Ds yet they have money for $ 100.dollar sneakers ,cell phones,big screen TVs ,cable and hair and nail salons appointments.ETC…..

Posted by: AVM | September 8, 2011, 11:45 am 11:45 am

We didn’t start a war just so the gubmint could tell us what to do. What? We lost?

Dang it. We don’t want your millions for out ailing education system or health care neither. (Even if we have to help foot the bill anyways.)

Just let us run SC our way.

Posted by: Uther Pendragon | September 8, 2011, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm

Taxpaying citizens are not the ones who commit voter fraud. It is always the minorities and the illegal aliens, supported by their various “rights” groups who instruct them on how to commit voter fraud.

There are never news reports of thousands of fraudulent votes for a republican candidate. But at every election there is news when it is discovered that thousands of fraudulent votes were placed for a democrat.

These voter ID laws do not go far enough. They should actually make it illegal to vote for a democrat. The republican party is far from perfect, but there is greater corruption among democrats than among republicans. And democrats want to take away personal freedoms from the citizens of America, much more than republicans do. Since Obama gained office, look at what has happened withing the TSA. They operate like the Gestapo. Under Obama, we see small farms being raided by military-like teams; we see Gibson Guitar factories have their wood stolen by military-like teams; and much more. Gibson uses the same wood that Martin uses. No raids on Martin. Why? Because Gibson is a republican-run business in a right-to-work state. Martin is a union shop, and contributes heavily to democrats.

Voting for democrats has the serious potential for causing harm to America. History proves it. Therefore, voting for democrats should be illegal. It should be considered an act of treason.

Posted by: Brenda McGill | September 8, 2011, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm

TheLoyalOpposition: It costs money to obtain a voter ID, hmm wouldn’t be surprised they upped it to a $100.00 close to election time, they are discriminating against poor voters, voting shouldn’t cost a dime.

Posted by: phantomniter | September 8, 2011, 5:47 pm 5:47 pm

“I looked up Minnesota’s voter fraud history and found…..not much. A few cases of felons voting when they weren’t eligible.”

113 people have so far been CONVICTED (as in found guilty) for voter fraud stemming from Minnesota’s 2008 general election and the charges are still ringing up. Not much? A few? No. A lot! You aren’t looking hard enough.

Posted by: Dan McGrath | September 9, 2011, 2:34 pm 2:34 pm

Funny how when gore lost to bush there was all kinds of voter fraud and now that someone is trying to do something about it its racist! As far as the college students are concerned get an absentee ballot from your home state! Dont get involved in local politicsand screw it up just to move on when you graduate! you are not a resident you just live there!

Posted by: d. corson | September 17, 2011, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm

These new laws are so transparent it makes me sick. All of a sudden we have massive voter fraud going on. Don’t you think the republicans would be touting the actual fraud statistics if they had any. They don’t because voter fraud is very rare. In fact the biggest voter fraud occurrence in the recent past have something to do with the Diebold voting machines and that has nothing to do with photo ID.
Republicans own most of the MSM and they are using them to trump up another fake problem. Why would any state government waster their time on a non-issue. Obviously to control the vote in every way possible.
People please understand that our voting rights are being taken away from us. Democrats need to stand together and vote out these legislators working on these terrible laws. With more and more voter suppresion happening our government has less and less reason to worry about the majority of the public and can then exclusively focus on their corporate master’s bidding.

Posted by: Chris | September 21, 2011, 7:05 pm 7:05 pm

I live in Minnesota and have personally witnessed voter fraud. The person who comitted the fraud indicated that they lived two doors down from me. When a neighbor and I spoke up to the election official, they said that there was nothing that they could do about it. The only reason that there is no procecutions of voter fraud in Minnesota is because they refuse to procecute or investigate any voter fraud that exists. Presenting a government issued photo ID is absolutly no barrier at all. By law any person who does not already have a drivers license or other government issued photo id can’t be charged any way. Everyone needs a photo id to cash a check, to pickup a welfare check and many other aspects of life. The whole notion that presenting a photo id is a barrier is silly and partisan at best.

Posted by: Uomo Del Ghiaccio | January 2, 2012, 6:56 pm 6:56 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.