The answer to a cynic's question "Do elections matter?" may be partially
found in the way judges have handled an Indiana voter photo ID law that
requires people to prove their identity before they can vote. The Supreme
Court will begin 2008 by hearing arguments in one of the most volatile
political cases to come before it since Bush vs. Gore in the 2000
presidential election.
As The Washington Post noted in a front-page Christmas Day story, deciding
the case may depend on where a judge stands politically, as much as where
that judge stands constitutionally. Appellate judges named by Republican
presidents have mostly favored the ID requirement. Appellate judges named by
Democrats have mostly opposed it.
The Post interviewed Richard L. Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law
School in Los Angeles. It summarized his position on the controversy this
way: "Hasen does not believe that the (lower court) decisions reflect a
desire to aid one political party over another, but rather a philosophical
divide on the question of whether protecting the integrity of the voting
process from fraud is of equal or greater value than making sure as many
eligible voters as possible take part in the process."
Come again? If potential voters are illegal aliens (or convicted felons, or
do not live where they claim) without proper IDs, how can they possibly be
"eligible" to vote? How is a voter registrar to determine whether someone
is, in fact, eligible without some form of legitimate identification?
The list of examples of situations in which a valid ID is required is long
and growing longer. Try buying an airplane ticket without a driver's license
or passport. Try passing through TSA without a government-issued ID.
Recently, I called my credit card company, and before the customer service
person would consider the purpose of my call, she asked me a list of
questions to make sure of my identity. It was the same when I called my cell
phone company, except that there were even more questions, including the
last four numbers on my Social Security card, the amount of my last bill and
my mother's maiden name. "We have to be sure you are who you say you are,
Mr. Thomas," said the woman.
If the airlines, TSA, credit card and cell phone companies require me to
prove who I am, why is it a problem when it comes to voting?
If Mr. Hasen believes that lower-court decisions do not reflect a desire to
aid one party or another, he is living in a hermetically - not to mention
politically - sealed environment. It is no secret that the Democratic Party,
especially, has been "importing" votes in recent years, telling immigrants
that Republicans don't want them here and so they had better register to
vote and vote for Democrats. Republicans are trying to play catch-up with
the alien vote, which is why they have been reluctant to do what is
necessary to control the southern border and to enforce immigration laws.
Democrats aren't blind. They see Republican approval among Hispanics in
decline, and they are taking advantage by escalating the import vote in time
for the 2008 election.
The next election, like other recent elections, will determine what kind of
judges sit on federal benches as well as how they interpret the Constitution
and the laws passed by Congress. If a liberal Democrat wins the White House,
more liberal judges will be named to benches and immigration laws -
especially voter ID requirements - will not be enforced, producing more
votes for Democrats and possibly condemning Republicans to permanent
minority status, though immigration will not be the only cause of that.
For the Supreme Court not to uphold the Indiana law would be the ultimate in
identity theft. It would legalize voter fraud and might call the legitimacy
of every future election into question.
The genius of the American system has been that the losing side mostly
accepts the decision of the majority. But if that majority is attained
through fraudulent means, this is the stuff that has sparked revolutions in
the past and could do so again.