While I was at the Election Assistance Commission as a lowly intern, one of the things that occurred was the DOJ making noises about preclearing an Arizona voter approved election law, Proposition 200, which among other provisions would require voters to produce identification at polling places before casting a ballot of any type, period, end sentence.
Sounds fairly reasonable, right? Except that, as many commentators have pointed out in the more publicized row about Georgia voter ID requirements, there is a certain amount of evidence that indicates that such restrictions not only fail to prevent meaningful voter fraud, but also disproportionately impact African American voters.
These considerations aside, the DOJ had taken a position that was inconsistent with the federal law, which reads in relevant part:
SEC. 302. 42 USC 15482. PROVISIONAL VOTING AND VOTING INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS.Nothing in there about a requirement for photo ID. Despite this, DOJ was going to preclear the law anyway. Thankfully, the chorus of protest from election advocacy organizations got a little too loud, and they reversed themselves.
(a) Provisional Voting Requirements.--If an individual declares that
such individual is a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the
individual desires to vote and that the individual is eligible to vote
in an election for Federal office, but the name of the individual does
not appear on the official list of eligible voters for the polling place
or an election official asserts that the individual is not eligible to
vote, such individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot as
follows:
(1) An election official at the polling place shall notify the individual that the individual may cast a provisional ballot in that election.
(2) The individual shall be permitted to cast a provisional ballot at that polling place upon the execution of a written affirmation by the individual before an election official at the polling place stating that the individual is--
(A) a registered voter in the jurisdiction in which the individual desires to vote; and
(B) eligible to vote in that election.
Lead point of contact between the EAC and DOJ was a guy named Hans von Spakovsky: I'd heard his name bandied about before but never got around to Googling him until now. The results?
I'm shocked, shocked.
4 comments:
The stinger, of course, is that if you re-read the statute and the linked news story, you still may have a bad feeling in your mouth. Can you guess why?
Ok, I'm stumped.
Okay, so the underlying public policy reason for a lot of opposition to mandatory voter ID requirements was that the less economically fortunate (and disproportionately African-American) can't afford to buy them. That would seem to militate for a resolution of the situation in one of two ways: one that supported the right of impoverished citizens to vote by operating simply, say, by affirmation, or a mechanical, legalistic shortcut around the language of the statute to still require the eventual production of expensive ID.
Arizona officials agreed Wednesday to let voters without identification cast provisional ballots but not to count those ballots unless voters later produce identification.
Mmm-hmmm.
My favorite legislatural fudge, however, remains this one.
Post a Comment