Voter Photo ID and Privacy
- Federal Court Panel Blocks South Carolina Voter ID Requirement: A special panel of federal judges in Washington, DC has barred the state of South Carolina from enforcing new voter identification requirements in the upcoming November elections. The court was "unable to conclude" that South Carolina could implement its voter identification law in a way that would "suffice under the Voting Rights Act" before the upcoming elections. The court did grant preclearance to implement the law after the November elections citing the "extremely broad interpretation of the reasonable impediment provision," which allows South Carolina voters to still vote if they complete an affidavit affirming their identity and state the reason for not having obtained photo identification. EPIC has previously argued that voter ID requirements impermissibly burden the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County. (Oct. 15, 2012)
- Pennsylvania Judge Blocks Voter ID Requirement: A Pennsylvania district court barred the state from enforcing voter identification requirements in the upcoming November elections. Following guidance from the state Supreme Court, Judge Robert Simpson issued a narrow preliminary injunction. He ordered that Pennsylvania may not require photo IDs to vote in November. Election officials may ask voters for identification, but those without ID may still cast regular ballots. Judge Simpson explained that the state Supreme Court identified "the essential offending activity as voter disenfranchisement, not a request to produce photo ID." EPIC has previously argued that voter ID requirements impermissibly burden the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County. (Oct. 3, 2012)
- Pennsylvania to Reconsider Voter ID Law: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that a lower court must determine whether the State's strict voter ID can lawfully be implemented before the national election on November 6. The Supreme Court said that the "disconnect between what the law prescribes and how it is being implemented" raises questions. EPIC has previously argued that voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the right to vote. EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County. (Sep. 21, 2012)
- 2012 Democrat Platform Endorses Internet Privacy: The 2012 Democratic National Platform supports the administration’s Internet Privacy Bill of Rights to protect consumer privacy. Separate provisions in the platform call for privacy protections for broadband deployment, intellectual property enforcement, and cybersecurity laws; the Democratic platform opposes voter identification laws. However, the platform is silent on the Fourth Amendment, and retreats from the 2008 Democratic platform that opposed surveillance of individuals that were not suspected of a crime. In 2008, Candidate Obama promised to "strengthen the privacy protections for the digital age and to harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.” The 2012 Republican Platform was released last week. The Libertarian and Green Party platforms are also available. For more information, see EPIC: Privacy and Consumer Profiling, EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy, EPIC: National Security Letters, and EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications. (Sep. 4, 2012)
- Federal Appellate Court Strikes Down Texas Voter ID Law: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has invalidated a Texas law that would require voters to present a photo identification in order to vote. Calling the law “the most stringent in the country,” the court held that “record evidence suggests that [the law], if implemented, would in fact have a retrogressive effect on Hispanic and African American voters.” Therefore, the court held, the law violates section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 requires “covered jurisdictions” to show that new voting procedures, such as Voter ID requirements, are nondiscriminatory before those changes can be put into effect. The ruling came after the Department of Justice previously blocked the law through the Section 5 preclearance process. EPIC has argued that unreasonable voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County. (Aug. 30, 2012)
- 2012 Republican Platform Addresses Privacy and Government Surveillance: The 2012 Republican Party Platform calls for strong Constitutional protections for privacy and new safeguards for personal data held by businesses. "We will ensure that personal data receives full constitutional protection from government overreach and that individuals retain the right to control the use of their data by third parties," the platform states. The platform also criticizes TSA screening procedures and calls for warrant requirements for most law enforcement-operated drones. However, other provisions endorse voter identification laws and increased disclosure of personal information to the government for cyber security. For more information, see EPIC: Privacy and Consumer Profiling, EPIC: Whole Body Imaging Technology and Body Scanners, EPIC: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and Drones, EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy, and EPIC: Cybersecurity Privacy Practical Implications. (Aug. 29, 2012)
- Second Wisconsin Judge Strikes Down State Voter ID Law: In a second challenge to Wisconsin's voter ID requirement, Judge David Flanagan has held that the ID law imposes an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote. The law "tells more than 300,000 Wisconsin voters who do not now have an acceptable form of photo identification that they cannot vote unless they first obtain a photo ID card," wrote Judge Flanagan. The opinion follows a similar ruling earlier this year by Wisconsin judge Richard Niees. For more information EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County. (Jul. 23, 2012)
- Senate Judiciary Holds Hearing on Voter Suppressions: The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on “Prohibiting the Use of Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Tactics in Federal Elections." The Senate is considering new legislation to address the problem of deceptive practices and voter intimidation. Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy cited "burdensome identification laws" as one of the obstacles to public participation in federal elections. A new report highlights similar problems in the recent Canadian national election. EPIC has published reports on deceptive campaign practices and filed briefs in opposition to unnecessary voter ID requirements. For more information see EPIC Voting Privacy and EPIC - Crawford v. Marion County. (Jun. 27, 2012)
- Federal Appeals Court Backs Justice Department in Voting Rights Dispute: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion rejecting Shelby County, Alabama's constitutional challenge to the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court held that Section 5 of the Act, which requires "covered jurisdictions" to show that new voting procedures, such as Voter ID requirements, are nondiscriminatory before those changes can be put into effect, is constitutional. Shelby County challenged the preclearance requirements after Congress reauthorized Section 5 in 2006. The Department of Justice recently blocked Voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas through the Section 5 preclearance process. EPIC has argued that unreasonable voter ID requirements are an impermissible burden on the right to vote. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy and EPIC: Crawford v. Marion County. (May. 18, 2012)
- District Court Panel Admonishes South Carolina in Voter ID Case: A three-judge panel overseeing a critical voter ID case, State of South Carolina v United States of America, set out an unusually detailed requirements in an Scheduling and Procedures Order issued today. According to the concurring statement of Judge Bates, joined by Judge Kollar-Kotelly, the state has engaged in delaying tactics even as it has urged a swift resolution of the matter, concerning new voting ID procedures adopted by the state. The court cited South Carolina's lack of responsiveness to the Department of Justice, "despite repeated requests" for the "final versions of the implementing procedures" for provisions of the law. The court expects to issue a final ruling in early September 2012., prior to the fall Presidential election. For more information, see EPIC: Voter Photo ID and Privacy. (Apr. 26, 2012)
In the US, voting civil rights advocates are locked in a struggle with federal, state and local authorities over more restrictive voter identification and authentication requirements. This clash over poll place practices and voter ID requirements was initially triggered by the passage of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which increased federal election requirements for first-time voters who register to vote by mail. These requirements include that voters provide a form of identification prior to voting in person for the first time. According to the Act, acceptable forms of identification could include a photo ID, “utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.”
While new ID requirements might appear minor to most voters, they threaten both privacy for all US voters and civil rights for marginalized voter populations. Similarly, while the states raise barriers to in-person voter participation through the new requirements, they leave the gate wide open to actual voter fraud threats posed by absentee voting.
EPIC has a long history of working on voter privacy issues, which this government issued photo ID requirement strongly affects. In a arch 2007 statement to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary, EPIC cautioned against new photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements for federal elections. Absent evidence of an actual problem, EPIC warned that the requirements could discourage legal voters. EPIC noted that Congress has already provided for provisional ballots for instances when there are doubts about the status of voters seeking to cast ballots in public elections.
In 1992, EPIC filed a voter registration privacy case in Greidinger over the state of Virginia's practice of collecting Social Security Numbers and making them publicly available. In that case EPIC prevailed by the decision of the court to prohibit the state of Virginia from requiring citizens who wish to register to provide a Social Security Number.
In 2007, EPIC filed a brief in the Crawford v. Marion County, strict voter government issued ID case to protect voting privacy rights of Indiana voters. Challenging the position of the state that the government issued photo ID requirement would add security to state elections. Further, the state of Indiana's poll worker training material on photo ID's used by the state to educate poll workers on acceptable and unacceptable photo IDs was questionable.View image
As of early 2012, 19 US states (CA, IL, IA, ME, MD, MA, MN, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, OR, PA, VT, WV, WY) and the District of Columbia have no voter ID laws.
Voters in seven states (AL, FL, HI, ID, LA, MI, RI (note: starting in 2014 RI will only accept government issued photo IDs), and SD) are requested to show a photo ID, but if they do not hold one they have several other options, including providing other forms of personal information or signing an affidavit of their identities, or another voter with a photo ID can attest to the identity of a voter without a photo ID.
Eight US states have so-called "strict voter photo ID laws," which restrict voting rights to those who hold a government-issued photo identification document. In early 2011 only two states, Georgia and Indiana, had enacted "strict voter ID” laws. During 2011, Kansas and Wisconsin, which previously had no voter photo ID laws, enacted them. South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas made changes to existing non-photo ID voting laws to restrict voting to only those with a government issued photo identification document. Mississippi citizens voted in favor of a ballot initiative to create a strict voter photo ID requirement, which will need legislative approval prior to going into effect.
In December 2011 the US Department of Justice rejected South Carolina’s request for approval of its new voter ID law. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, South Carolina must receive Department of Justice approval when making changes to poll place practices.
In 2012, new voter ID laws are introduced in Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and West Virginia. There are still bills pending that would strengthen existing voter ID laws in the states legislatures for Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.
Voting in the US was initially limited to white male landholders, but this civil right was gradually extended to include non-landholders, persons of color, women, and 18-20- year-olds. Historically, however, each extension of voting rights was not always welcomed by local and state officials due to the legacy of slavery, ethnic codes, and other laws that limited the civil rights of women, poor whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Native Americans, and new citizens.
Union Army occupation of the South following the Civil War instituted civil rights reform that allowed former slaves to vote, which made possible a large number of free black citizens to hold local, state, and federal office. However, predominantly Southern states were particularly creative in establishing “Jim Crow” laws to restrict the voting rights of former slaves. These laws focused on establishing polling place practices intended to prevent certain voters from participating in public elections. These measures included “Grandfather Clauses,” “Intelligence Tests,” and “Literacy Tests.” Many tests were impossible to answer, such as: “How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?”
To further remove minority and poor white voters from the voting process, local governments imposed “poll taxes,” which required voters to pay a fee to vote in public elections. These practices, joined with violence against those who challenged these polling practices, effectively removed from public office every black Congressional office holder elected during Reconstruction.
The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s dismantled the “Jim Crow” laws. Congress passed the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution on August 27, 1962 and the Amendment was ratified by two-thirds of the nation’s state legislatures by September 23, 1962. The 24th Amendment prohibits a state or the federal government from requiring a “fee” from voters in order for them to cast a ballot in federal public elections. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided additional tools to protect voters from discrimination and violence, by establishing the Department of Justice as the federal agency with the power to sue states that restricted the voting rights of minorities.
Increased voter identification requirements oblige voters to obtain at least one form of identification for which the state typically collects a fee. Some states allow persons who cannot afford a card to obtain one for free; however, this method can require documented proof of identity, state residency, citizenship and indigence or income. Voter registration applicants are often required to apply for such cards well in advance of an election. The current economy will place additional burdens on a larger number of voters than at any time in recent history, as well as added expenses to states, at a time when state, local, and personal budgets are under extreme stress. States also must provide transparency to voters regarding voting changes, and offer adequate resources to meet the rush of demand for photo identification or other forms of acceptable documents that can be obtained in time for voters to participate on the Tuesday, November 6, 2012 general election.
Increased voter identification requirements oblige all citizens presenting themselves at voting locations - the vast majority of whom presumably arouse no suspicion - to disclose not only their names but also all information that appears on their form of government-issued photo identification. Further, voters are required to present the cards not to police but to poll workers, most of whom are neither professionally licensed in law enforcement nor permanent government employees. Voting ID requirements mandate self-identification not in the context of criminal apprehension but as a condition to an innocent person’s exercise of the constitutional right to vote.
The most common form of government-issued photo identification is a driver’s license, which includes the voter’s name and photographic likeness but also may include such information as the voter’s age, height, weight, driver’s license number, restrictions owing to disability or impairment (such as for imperfect vision or a prosthetic limb), and fingerprints. Furthermore, states, rather than voters, have sole control over the information placed into a state-issued ID card, and the applicant for such identification cannot choose to withhold certain data. Changes in the design and content of driver’s licenses and other state-issued identification are also at the government’s discretion. Any changes may not consider the requirements set forth by state laws governing voter ID requirements.
Furthermore, in recent years states have increased the numbers and types of documents required to obtain state-issued drivers licenses or other identification documents. These requirements have proven to be costly and in some cases burdensome because the funds necessary for purchasing them or the underlying documents were impossible to obtain.
The cumulative effects of what many would deem a minor burden on voter rights would be substantial over time because checking papers, according to University of Toledo professor DJ Steinbock, has “an additional subjective effect on a grand scale: the psychic harm to free people of having to ‘show your papers’.... Not only would people forced to go through identity checkpoints experience some degree of fear and surprise, but also knowing that this has become a permanent part of the social fabric would diminish their sense of liberty.”
- Media and Democracy Reveals Source of Voter ID State Laws
- Wisconsin Online Voter ID -- Your Papers Please
- National Conference of State Legislatures
- National Council of State Legislatures: Voter ID Laws
- Multiracial Identity and the U.S. Census: 1900-2000
- Black Elected Officials
- Constitution of the United States 24th Amendment
- Privacy and Human Rights 2006, Voting Privacy, Publication of EPIC and Privacy International
- Help America Vote Act of 2002
- GREIDINGER v. State of Virginia (Use of the SSN)
- Voting Rights Act
- EPIC: 2007 House Testimony on Voting Rights and Privacy
Wisconsin's Online Information on New State Voter Government Issued Photo ID Requirement
Wisconsin has placed information online regarding voter government issued photo ID requirements for different types of voters, in person, absentee military, absentee, elderly absentee, and felon voting. The effort to reach voters must be more aggressive because prior to 2011 voting in that state allowed registration and voting on the same day. The government issued photo ID requirement will disallow voting in this manner for thousands of voters.
The information on the different requirements for each class of voter is outlined by the [pdf] documents hosted on the state's website, which are provided below:
- Election Day Voting Wisconsin’s New Voter Photo ID Law
- Wisconsin Guide for Elderly Voters and the Government Issued Photo ID Law
- Wisconsin Absentee Voting and the New Government Issued Photo ID Requirement
- Wisconsin's Voter Government Issued Photo ID requirement and New Citizen Voting
- Wisconsin Voter Photo ID Requirement and Felon Votingf
- The Potential Impact of Voter Identification Laws on Transgender Voters, Jody L. Herman, The Williams Institute, April 2012
- Brennan Center Voter ID Report
- Can we change implicit racial attitudes in the real-world?
- Race-Specific Perceptual Discrimination Improvement Following Short Individuation Training With Faces
- Perceptual Other-Race Training Reduces Implicit Racial Bias