 Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Photo ID Law, Undermines Voting Rights Thursday, May 1st, 2008http://www.progressivestates.org/dispatch [1]
Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Photo ID Law, Undermines Voting Rights [6] In a blow to voting rights, Indiana's strict voter ID law [7], which requires government-issued photo identification every time a person votes, has been upheld [8] by the United States Supreme Court. This deeply disappointing [9] decision will undoubtedly give new momentum to efforts to expand voter ID laws in many states (Oklahoma [10], Missouri [11], Kansas [12], and possibly Illinois [13] appear likely to pass new voter ID laws in the immediate future). However, progressive legislators and advocates can take the offense in broadening the debate over the real sources of fraud and intimidation in our elections. The Court's Decision is a Big Step Backward for Voting Rights: Indiana's voter ID law requires that voters provide a state or federal ID with a photograph every time they vote. The only exceptions to the law are for those who are indigent, who have a religious objection to being photographed, or who live in a state-licensed facility that serves as their polling place, such as a nursing home. Indigent and religious exemption voters must vote by provisional ballot and then travel to the county seat within 10 days of the election to execute a written affirmation that they qualify for the exemption under penalty of a felony. The law does not place any requirement on absentee voters. The Supreme Court decision [14] refused to undertake any meaningful analysis of the burden the law imposes on voters, or of the validity of the state's claim that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud. As was noted in Justice Souter's dissent, the majority of the Court ignored compelling evidence that the burden was great enough to prevent a large majority of voters without ID who did come to the polls from having their votes counted, and they ignored fundamental weaknesses in the state's assertion that the ID law served a legitimate purpose. Justice Souter noted:
And in analyzing the state's argument that the law was necessary to combat voter fraud, Justice Souter noted in dissent that the law concentrated only on in-person fraud while ignoring issues of "ballot-stuffing, ballot miscounting, voter intimidation" and other potential problems, despite the fact that: " the State has not come across a single instance of in-person voter impersonation fraud in all of Indiana's history." The court, in deciding this case, has taken the nation far afield from where we were when the poll tax was struck down. Now, if an election law doesn't hurt the ability of the majority of people to vote, it appears safe from facial challenge and those who end up being prevented from voting will have to bring their challenges after the fact, a much more difficult process that will never get their lost votes back. As one elections expert put it [15], " I fear that [...] this opinion will be read as a green light for the enactment of more partisan election laws in an attempt to skew outcomes in close elections." How Progressive Leaders can Be Proactive on Voting Rights Legislation: As new photo ID laws and other ways to disenfranchise voters are promoted in states in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, progressive legislators need to educate their colleagues and constituents about how these laws are merely a ploy [16] to keep minority [17], poor, and less-educated [17] voters from participating in elections, and the fact that the crisis these bills are supposed to solve -- supposed in-person voter fraud -- is not a problem [18] anywhere in the country. More proactively, progressive legislators and advocates can change the nature of the debate by simultaneously debunking the voter fraud myths used to advance voter ID laws and putting forward strong measures that combat the real threats to our elections and voting rights, such as voter intimidation and convoluted registration requirements that have nothing to do with ballot integrity. When ID laws are proposed, anti-voter suppression and well-reasoned election integrity amendments should be offered as alternatives. Unlike voter fraud, voter suppression -- intimidating voters, spreading misinformation to prevent people from voting such as sending out incorrect poll site information, and challenging the eligibility of groups of voters without particular knowledge that they are ineligible (called "voter caging") -- are real practices that occur throughout the country [19]. Voter ID laws themselves open up new doors for voter intimidation and misinformation as ill-trained poll workers ask for ID that isn't required and partisans lie to voters about ID requirements in an attempt to discourage voting. However, if voters are forced to provide photo identification at the polls, there is no reasonable justification remaining for not implementing election day registration (EDR) [20], so EDR amendments should be attached to any voter ID bill that is proposed. As an example, an EDR provision, along with an anti-caging provision, was recently incorporated in a voter ID bill [10] approved in the Oklahoma Senate. The Supreme Court's Indiana decision is a giant step backwards in election law jurisprudence, but elected leaders and advocates need to take action to assure that it does not translate into more bad state legislation and that a much broader debate follows on the real issues that undermine the integrity of our elections.
Statewide Video Franchising Legislation: Bad Bills in Tennessee & Louisiana, and an Innovative Approach in Minnesota
Legislators in both Tennessee and Louisiana have heavily promoted statewide video franchising legislation this session. Just this past week the Tennessee House approved HB 1421 [21], the "Competitive Cable and Video Services Act," while Louisiana legislators have introduced multiple statewide franchising bills, with SB 807 [22] having the most momentum. The common thread between each Louisiana bill is that they are all bad for consumers. In theory, statewide video franchises, which create a single statewide, simplified process of offering cable services, could have benefits for the public, such as increasing competition. Unfortunately, however, the legislation enacted so far does not include strong enough consumer protections or broadband deployment requirements and once implemented generally does not supply the promised benefits. Despite, all the evidence from the National Association of Telecommunications Officers & Advisors [23] (NATOA),Texas [24], and North Carolina [25] that statewide video franchising without strong build-out requirements, consumer protections, and mandatory Public, Educational, and Governmental (PEG) access channel support does not produce positive results for residents, states continue to push through bad legislation.For example, according to a study conducted by NATOA, consumers in states that have enacted state-level franchising laws have seen their cable service bills go up 8% to 50%, depending on the level of service [26] [26]. Problems with Tennessee and Louisiana Franchise Bills: Proposed legislation in both states reflect the worst of the bad policy from franchise legislation enacted in other states, including:
Conducting a study to analyze the positives and negatives of statewide video franchising in other states is a good way to ensure that before Minnesota takes any action, legislators have accurate information on the potential effects of statewide franchising. This impact study will allow Minnesota -- and other states -- to determine if statewide video franchising is the correct action to take and what consumer and municipal protections must be included.
Families USA's State Reports Document Bush's Assault on State Economies and the Consequences of Being Uninsured Absent a national health care policy, states have found ways to expand the reach of Medicaid by covering more low-income, senior and disabled people and expanding the list of covered services. Because of state action, 58 million Americans now have health coverage they would not otherwise possess. To push back on the states, the Bush Administration put forward several new Medicaid regulations [32] last year that, if implemented, will shift the burden and costs to states. This will result in reduced benefits for millions of Americans unless already cash-strapped states find some way to pick up the slack - to the tune of $50 billion [33] over five years. The new Bush regulations [32] include reducing reimbursements to providers and eliminating education programs for medical students, restricting the scope of rehabilitation services, restricting school-based and other efforts to enroll Medicaid-eligible children and adults, and reducing the scope of covered outpatient services. The net impact, according to a survey [33] of state Medicaid directors conducted by the Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is a cut of at least $50 billion over five years in federal payments to states. This is more than three times the Administration's own estimates of the state impact. Families USA on Medicaid Cuts in the States: The impact on state economies could be significant, as Families USA [34] outlines in a series of state-specific reports, Bad Medicine: The President's Medicaid Regulations Will Weaken State Economies [35]. If the regulations go into effect, the result will be thousands of lost jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost business activity because of the reduced federal funding. Families USA has profiled the impact on 24 states, including Colorado [36], Connecticut [37], Iowa [38], Maine [39], New Mexico [40], New York [41], North Carolina [42], Pennsylvania [43], and Wisconsin [44]. "Deep in the heart [45]" of Bush's home state, Texas [46] will lose $3.4 billion in federal Medicaid funding, 6,000 jobs, and $635.8 million in business activity if the regulations are allowed to stand. Meanwhile Congress is trying to delay [47] implementation of the regulations until April 2009. Dying for Coverage: Another series of state-specific reports from Families USA documents the "dire consequences" of being uninsured. In Dying for Coverage [48], Families USA documents deaths caused from lack of insurance. In one of the most striking examples, 8 adults die each day in California [49] because they have no health insurance. Elsewhere, in Illinois [50], Families USA found that 18 adults die each week for lack of coverage. Across the US, twice as many people died in 2006 from lack of health insurance as died from homicides. Families USA issued reports for all 50 states and the District of Columbia [51]. As Families USA reports [48], the uninsured are sicker and die earlier than insured Americans. The uninsured are also less likely to have a steady source of care outside of emergency rooms, are less likely to receive preventive care, and are more likely to delay or go without needed treatment. President Bush's Medicaid regulations will swell the ranks of the uninsured, further stress state economies, and subject more Americans to the dire consequences of our disjointed and irrational health care system.
Research Roundup
While economic inequality between whites and blacks is significant, a new economic snapshot [52] by the Economic Policy Institute documents that the gap in financial wealth is even larger. In 2004, when home equity is subtracted, blacks held less than 1% of the $36,100 net worth held by whites. In The State of Minorities: How Are Hispanics and African Americans Faring in the Economy? [53], the Center for American Progress finds that while both Hispanics and African Americans made significant economic progress during the 1990s, those gains have either slowed or been reversed since 2000. Increasing amounts of debt, high job losses, skyrocketing gas and food prices, and a tidal wave of foreclosures have disproportionately hurt those communities across the country. Despite tough fiscal times, 16 governors and the mayor of Washington, D.C. proposed a total of $261 million in increases for pre-kindergarten programs, according to a new study [54] by Pre-K Now. The proposals would make pre-K available to an additional 60,000 three and four year olds across the country. This would bring total state funding for pre-K to $5.2 billion. The report calls on other states that failed to make pre-K a priority to consider the long-term benefits of early investments in children. In the The Toxic 100: The Top Corporate Air Polluters in the U.S [55], the Political Economy Research Institute at U-Mass Amherst identifies the worse polluters across the country in order to empower communities and legislative leaders to take action against companies that are endangering the health of their residents. Montana has the lowest limits on campaign contributions to state legislative candidates, just $160 each election per contributor, and a new study [56] by the National Institute on Money in State Politics finds that the average number of contributors has increased from 5,500 before reforms lowering the contribution limit to 8,300 post-reform even as the average dollar contribution dropped from $169 to $110.
Please email us [57] leads on good research at research@progressivestates.org [57] ResourcesSupreme Court Upholds Indiana Photo ID Law, Undermines Voting Rights U.S. Supreme Court - Crawford v. Marion County Board of Elections [14] Brennan Center for Justice - Policy Brief on Alternatives to Voter ID [62] Demos - Challenges to Fair Elections: Voter ID [63] People for the American Way - The New Face of Jim Crow: Voter Suppression in America [64] People for the American Way - The Long Shadow of Jim Crow: Voter Intimidation and Suppression in America Today [19]
Alvarez et al. - The Effect of Voter Identification Laws on Turnout [66] Michigan Law Review - Voter Identification [67] Barreto et al. - Voter ID Requirements and the Disenfranchisement of Latino, Black and Asian Voters [17] Lonna Rae Atkeson et al. - New Barriers to Participation: Application of New Mexico's Voter Identification Law [68] Statewide Video Franchising Legislation: Bad Bills in Tennessee & Louisiana, and an Innovative Approach in MinnesotaProgressive States Network - Regulatory Standards for Video Franchise Legislation [69]
Progressive States Network - Build-Out Requirements in Video Franchising Laws [70] National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) - Understanding the Impact of State Video Services Legislation [26]. Texas Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors (TATOA) - TATOA Study of the Effects of the Texas State-Issued Video Franchise Cable Prices. [71] Industry report [72] on the Texas Video Franchising Bill, SB 5. Alliance for Community Media [73] Families USA's State Reports Document Bush's Assault on State Economies and the Consequences of Being Uninsured Families USA - Bad Medicine: The President's Medicaid Regulations Will Weaken State Economies [35] Families USA - Dying for Coverage [48] Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform - The Administration's Medicaid Regulations: State-by-State Impacts [33] Kaiser Family Foundation - Medicaid and the Uninsured: Overview and Impact of New Regulations [32] 3 Steps Forward1. OH: Ohio House OKs 28% cap on payday loans [74] 2. More states offer choice in long-term care [75] 3. US: Expanding government hiring offsets job losses in private sector [76] 2 Steps Back1. 23 states face budget gaps in '09 [77] 2. IA: Tactics in Swift immigration raids hurt community, problems highlighted at hearing [78] EventsGood Jobs First Conference May 7th & 8th
Registration is now open for Good Jobs First's national conference [79] on May 7 and 8 near BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, located between Baltimore and Washington, DC. Come meet the nation's top campaigners, researchers and experts on economic development accountability and smart growth for working families. MastheadThe Stateside Dispatch is written and edited by: Nathan Newman [80], Policy Director Please shoot us an email at dispatch@progressivestates.org [87] if you have feedback, tips, suggestions, criticisms, or nominations for any of our sidebar features.
To unsubscribe: Click here [88]
|