Washington, D.C. – Calling voting “one of the most fundamental rights we have,” members of the Project 21 black leadership network are calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to provide a clear and unmistakable ruling on the constitutionality of states requiring voters to show photo identification at polls before the 2008 general elections.

Proponents of voter ID requirements say they want to lessen the likelihood of voter fraud. Opponents, such as Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, say that asking for a driver’s license or passport at a polling station is the equivalent of a “modern-day poll tax.”

“While I am appalled that the Supreme Court feels compelled to have to take up such a case in the first place, it is important we get this issue behind us before the next election,” said Project 21′s Kevin Martin. “Voting is one of the most fundamental rights we have as Americans, and we have a right to a process that is free of fraud and corruption.”

Six states currently require some sort of photo ID be presented before ballots are issued to voters. Photo ID laws were challenged and upheld by the courts in Indiana, Georgia and Arizona. In Missouri, a photo ID law was struck down last year.

In his majority opinion for a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard A. Posner pointed out that the Indiana law is meant to counteract voter fraud, “and voter fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes.” Before the enactment of the Indiana law in 2005, voters were only required to sign a book at the polling place and their signature could be compared with a copy on file.

Project 21 members do not believe strengthening the voter verification process is an impediment to voting.

A September 2007 report by The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis backs this assertion, stating that voter identification laws in general “largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout based on state-to-state comparisons. African-American respondents in photo identification states are just as likely to report voting compared to African-American respondents from states that only required voters to state their name.”

“Likening the requirement of a credible ID to a poll tax or other Jim Crow-era roadblocks is nothing more than empty rhetoric parroted by partisan operatives,” added Project 21′s Martin. “Photo IDs of the sort necessary to vote in states such as Indiana are a growing everyday requirement in the post-9/11 world for security reasons as well as for business transactions. Where government isn’t already helping and making it easier for those without such identification to obtain it, steps can and should be taken. This should silence all critics, except for those who seek to exploit existing rules to defraud people of the honor and duty of participating in the election process.”

Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or visit Project 21′s website at www.project21.org/P21Index.html.

By Mark Sherman
New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide whether voter identification laws unfairly deter the poor and minorities from voting, stepping into a contentious partisan issue in advance of the 2008 elections.

The justices will hear arguments early next year in a challenge to an Indiana law that requires voters to present photo ID before casting their ballots. The state has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.

The state Democratic party and civil rights groups complained that the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters, without any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists in Indiana. The party argued that those voters tend to be Democrats.

Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona and Michigan, but struck down Missouri’s. Earlier this month, a federal judge dismissed a challenge to Georgia’s voter identification law, saying the statute does not impose a significant burden on the right to vote.

Election law experts had urged the court to take the Indiana case to instruct courts on how to weigh claims of voter fraud versus those of disenfranchisement. “The court better resolve this question before ballots start getting counted next fall,” said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan.

The court is expected to issue a decision by late June, in time for the November general election.

The Indiana law enacted in 2005 was upheld by a federal judge and by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Before the law’s passage, an Indiana voter had only to sign a poll book at the polling place, where a photo copy of the voter’s signature was kept on file for comparison.

“The purpose of the Indiana law is to reduce voting fraud, and voting fraud impairs the right of legitimate voters to vote by diluting their votes,” Judge Richard Posner said in his majority opinion.

But in a dissent, Judge Terence Evans said, “Let’s not beat around the bush. The Indiana voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by folks believed to skew Democratic.”

Bill Groth, an attorney who has represented the Indiana Democratic Party in the lawsuit, said he was thrilled that the nation’s highest court will take up the case. He said the appeals court made light of the right to vote in its decision, but the Supreme Court has guarded that right more seriously.

“The court has over and over stressed that the right to vote should be protected, and any state law that burdens that right should be carefully and meticulously reviewed,” Groth said.

The voter ID challenge was among 17 new cases accepted by the court in advance of the start of its new term on Monday.

The cases are Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25.

By Eric Stirgus
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Georgia’s first test of its much-debated photo voter ID system passed Tuesday’s elections with no reported glitches, state officials and some critics of the new law said Wednesday.

Secretary of State Karen Handel, who oversees Georgia’s elections, said she heard of no complaints in the 23 counties where elections were held Tuesday.

Some who opposed the ID system say there were few complaints because many people without the proper ID didn’t vote.

Kevin Thomas, Clayton County’s Democratic Party chairman, said he received a telephone call from someone Tuesday wondering if the caller’s grandmother could vote if she didn’t have identification.

“I know for a fact [the ID requirement] did discourage people from coming out,” Thomas said.

Handel disagreed. She estimated her office spent $250,000 in voter education efforts, which Handel believes helped Tuesday.

Handel said her office has about $250,000 left in its annual budget to continue educating voters and plans to ask state lawmakers for an additional $1 million before the Feb. 5 presidential primary.

“It was my view as long as the state made the effort to do the education and outreach, we would be able to manage if we did our jobs,” she said. “All of that happened.”

The Georgia Legislature passed a law in 2005 requiring voters to have several forms of photo identification, including a state driver’s license, a valid U.S. passport, military photo, state or federal government photo. Anyone without identification can still vote by absentee ballot or provisional vote.

Georgia’s voter ID requirements are considered some of the toughest in the nation. Civil libertarians, Democratic Party leaders and some civil rights groups vigorously fought the requirements, saying many low-income and elderly Georgians who don’t have photo identification wouldn’t be able to vote. Supporters said the requirements would curb voter fraud. A federal judge upheld the law earlier this month.

State Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kidd said she didn’t hear any complaints Tuesday. She suggested some people may not have voted because they were confused by the new requirements but believes that number wasn’t significant.

Kidd said her group will raise awareness before the presidential primary by calling voters and placing newspaper ads explaining what forms of identification are required.

“We expect the first real test of it to be Feb. 5,” she said.

THE STORY SO FAR

• Previously: A state law requiring several forms of photo ID to vote survived several court challenges to strike down the new guidelines.
• The latest: The requirements took effect for the first time Tuesday.
• What’s next: Critics will closely monitor Nov. 6 municipal elections and Feb. 5 presidential primary, where larger turnout is expected.