http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/opinion/sunday/who-gets-to-vote.html 2016-09-30 20:53:44 Who Gets to Vote? Voter ID laws strike at the rights and dignity of racial minorities and the poor. But there is another, more inclusive way. === In recent years, you’ve needed a scorecard to keep track of voting laws in the United States. For nearly a decade, Republican-dominated state legislatures have been churning out strict voter ID laws and other measures likely to reduce access to the ballot box. But the pace of activity quickened after June 2013, when the Supreme Court Within hours of that decision, Shelby v. Holder, Texas announced that it would start enforcing a very strict ID law that had been turned back under the Voting Rights Act and that could affect more than 600,000 registered voters. Alabama and Mississippi followed suit, with laws that created particular hurdles for rural and small-town voters without driver’s licenses. North Carolina went further, passing a bill that imposed a strict ID requirement, reduced early voting and eliminated same-day registration. Things looked bleak for voting rights advocates and for the people most likely to be barred from the polls by these laws: members of racial and ethnic minorities, the poor and working class, the elderly and the young. Over the last few months, however, Nonetheless, judges are indicating that there are limits to the obstacles that states can impose on voters, particularly if those obstacles could disproportionately affect minorities. The list of documents that can be used to establish a voter’s identity, for example, ought not be too narrow, and states need to create reasonable “safety net” procedures to permit people to vote even if they lack proper identification (such as signing affidavits explaining why they could not obtain the requisite documents). Judges are also expressing growing skepticism about the claim that these laws are needed to prevent fraud since nobody seems able to find evidence that fraud is anything other than a minuscule problem. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit even excoriated North Carolina’s legislature — thus sending a warning to others — for having gathered data on racial differences in voting behaviors and But does that mean the laws will have little or no impact in November? Almost certainly not. Many of the ID laws passed in the last decade will still be in force, although the strictest among them will be loosened or even suspended for this election. Similarly, many of the other new rules will remain in place, though modified in some instances by the courts. These include reductions in early and weekend voting periods and locations, the termination of same-day registration, revived bans on voting by ex-felons, limitations on voter registration drives, purges of the voter rolls, a diminished number of polling places and requirements that immigrants present proof of citizenship to register. It is impossible to gauge with precision how much effect these laws will have. Many of them, including some of the ID laws, have never been in place during a high-turnout presidential election; even softened, such laws have the potential to sow confusion among voters and election officials. Measuring the impact of these laws, moreover, is no easy task. Turnout, even within individual communities, can rise and fall for many reasons, and there is no handy way to tease out the effects of a law. That said, most studies conclude that the new restrictions will reduce the participation of African-Americans, Latinos and poor people generally, most likely by a few percentage points — and perhaps by as much as eight to 10 percentage points. The figure will surely vary from community to community. The outcomes of some local and even congressional races may well be affected by these laws; and it’s not out of the question that they could play a role in a tight presidential contest, although the North Carolina and Wisconsin court decisions make that less likely. The results will almost certainly skew in favor of Republicans: as a growing number of But the significance of these laws goes far beyond this election. Laws of this type strike at the rights and the dignity of some of our fellow citizens: A great majority of us will be unaffected, but to others the message sent is that they do not quite belong to the polity. Stories abound: a 93-year-old veteran in Texas How might we usher in a new era in which voting will be more open, accessible and democratic? The steps are not hard to imagine, and some have already been taken in several states. (Indeed, a number of blue states, Registration could be made automatic, when a high school student approaches her 18th birthday or when anyone interacts with a government agency like a motor vehicle office or public assistance agency. ID requirements could be loosened, and it could become the responsibility of government, not individuals, to make sure everyone has an appropriate ID (as is the case in many countries). Someone who showed up at the polls without a valid document could be allowed to cast a provisional ballot and, on the spot, apply for an ID, with the aid of officials who would know how to troubleshoot the process. Election Day could be a holiday or a Sunday, with the option of absentee voting easily available. Congress could, and should, pass legislation, such as the It is a mark of our times that this agenda — which would yield a less conflict-ridden and more inclusive electoral system — sounds like an old-fashioned civics textbook and yet politically naïve, utopian even. In fact, no such reform program will be widely put in place as long as most Republicans (there are notable exceptions) cling to the shortsighted belief that their interests will be served by reducing turnout among poor people, African-Americans, Hispanics and students. Or as long as they believe their own mythmaking about the prevalence of fraud: According to a recent poll, two-thirds of Donald Trump’s supporters are convinced that electoral fraud occurs often — Still, the historical record offers glimmers of hope: previous eras of disenfranchisement or voter suppression have come to an end. This has sometimes happened within states when a political party fostering suppressive or exclusive laws recognizes that, despite those laws, its hold on power may be slipping away thanks to social or demographic changes and that it would be best to stop antagonizing (and even court) blocs of potential voters. One could imagine this happening sooner or later in North Carolina, Georgia and even Texas. An alternative path involves the federal government. At key historical junctures, both Congress and the courts have overridden state laws in order to protect core democratic rights. In 1935, the Supreme Court upheld the “whites only” Democratic primary in Texas; nine years later, with new justices on the court and a million uniformed African-Americans fighting overseas, it reversed that decision. Congress acted similarly in 1869 and 1919, when it approved constitutional amendments prohibiting disenfranchisement based on race and gender, and again in 1965, when it first passed the Voting Rights Act. At the moment we do not have either a Congress or a Supreme Court that seems much inclined to take steps of this type. But that could be one more reason to vote in November.