Home > Issues > Voting Rights > Protect the Right to Vote > Speech on why we oppose voter ID

This speech was given by Carolyn Jackson at a grassroots activist training held to mobilize people on voter id. The training was held on 9.22.11 in Minneapolis.

Voting Rights and Identification: A Legal Perspective

Voting is not a privilege. It is a fundamental constitutional right. More constitutional amendments protect voting-the First, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-Sixth-than any other right. Voting is the fundamental political right because it preserves all other political rights.

The State has two interests in regulating voting: to ensure that a voter is eligible to vote, and that a voter only votes once in a single election. Our concerns over voter ID rise from that fact that requiring an ID limits a fundamental right without clearly serving the state's interest. Drivers licenses do not show whether a person is on parole; a person who has recently moved may vote illegally in the wrong precinct with a legal driver's license that hasn't been updated. So what explains the push for an ID requirement?

Since the 2000 election when George W. Bush won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, there has been a heightened concern over fraud in elections. Right wing political operatives have tapped into that concern to manipulate election rules. Chief among their tactics is to limit who can vote through identification requirements.

One case occurred here in Minnesota, when Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer tried to stop the use of tribal IDs in voter registration, which the ACLU successfully prevented.

That was in 2004. Now, in 2011, the push is not only to limit new voters from registering, but also to limit currently registered voters from voting.

This push comes without any credible evidence of a problem.

According to the Minnesota Judicial Computer System, in 2009 there were 14 convictions of voter-eligibility crime, in 2010, there were 11 convictions, and by April, 2011, there were 52 convictions. These numbers do not break down by category. We have heard of people voting in the wrong precinct or voting while still on parole from a felony violation. We have not heard of any cases of voter impersonation.

So, 77 convictions after two elections when over five million forty-four thousand votes were cast. That translates to 0.0015%. (Fifteen thousandths of one percent).

If voter ID becomes law in Minnesota, people without a current driver's license, Minnesota ID card or voter ID card will not be able to vote. Hundreds of thousands of eligible voters in Minnesota now lack one of those forms of ID with current information. So, to correct a system which has no material problems, we would disenfranchise thousands. Maybe even hundreds of thousands. Proponents say there are ways to get a current ID, but no matter what kind of system that is set up, these are registered voters who would instantly lose the ability to vote, and would have to work to earn back the right to vote.

This is especially troubling when you account for the groups this would affect the most: Young voters, the disabled, the elderly, the poor, and people of color.

In 2008, the United States Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law as constitutional on its face under the United States Constitution.

However, an ID requirement to vote may be unconstitutional under the Minnesota Constitution. When a law implicates racial or ethnic discrimination, the Minnesota courts are more likely to find greater protection under our state constitution.

How does a voter ID requirement implicate racial or ethnic discrimination? First, nationwide studies show persons of color are more likely to not carry current ID than whites. For example, according to a 2006 survey done by the Brennan Center, twenty-five percent of African-American voting-age citizens have no current government-issued photo ID, compared to eight percent of white voting-age citizens.

In Minnesota, many Native Americans depend upon their tribal ID card for identification. The voter ID proposal does not list tribal ID as an acceptable ID for voting. Voters with tribal IDs have an additional step to take, that is, an additional barrier to voting. They must use their tribal ID to get a Minnesota ID to vote.

Rhetoric on the voter ID issue says "but you need an ID for everything" or "everyone has an ID." But when you consider that young people or low income people move frequently and may not update their driver's license every time they move, or many Native Americans in Minnesota depend upon their tribal ID, or elderly people who no longer drive don't keep their ID current, suddenly "everyone" has a different meaning. "Everyone" becomes a clearly defined subset of voters-and the definitions of that select group are fodder for political gamesmanship.

This is the law: Voting is a right. This is the evidence: There is no evidence of voter impersonation in Minnesota. Requiring an ID to vote will take away the voting rights of Minnesota citizens, with a disproportionate impact on racial minorities. Law should not be made on fear and rumor but on fact. We must defeat voter ID.