Rushing Voter ID proves its true intent
To really understand the Pennsylvania Voter ID law, consider the effort to switch broadcast television from analog to digital a few years back.
The “digital switchover” changed the way you could tune in over-the-air television signals. Unnecessary technical bits aside, the result was that if you got your TV from an antenna (in other words, if you didn’t have cable), you either needed a new TV or a converter box to avoid losing the ability to watch television.
Originally proposed in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (a landmark law for media studies, if you’re taking notes), the original deadline for the switch was Dec. 31, 2006. But when it became clear that many would be left behind if the change went into effect then, Congress pushed the deadline back to Dec. 31, 2008.
As that date neared and still the public wasn’t ready, lawmakers again moved the deadline back, this time to Feb. 17, 2009. But in January 2009, when slightly more than 2 percent of Americans were estimated to still be unable to make the switch, the deadline was pushed back for the last time, to June of that year.
To simplify further, when the government was going to institute a change that would effect the public’s access to television, it spent billions and held off implementation until it was sure the public was ready. Even a measly 2 percent of people not being ready was enough to convince lawmakers to pump the breaks.
But that was something important, like television. For something as frivolous as voting, Pennsylvania lawmakers are content with rushing to implement a change that would keep 9.2 percent of voters in the state from being able to exercise their right to participate in democracy.
But beyond the inherent wrongness of denying Americans the right to vote (as I covered in this space on July 13), there’s also the incredibly galling issue of timing.
The Pennsylvania Voter ID law was passed along party lines and signed in mid-March of this year. There’s a presidential election in November. That gives voters without ID only 7 months to get the proper paperwork and process them in order to get an ID. If they don’t (or can’t) manage that, well, tough. (They will just lose the right to vote, which isn’t fundamental to our society or anything, right?)
Again, when it came to making sure no one lost the ability to watch television, we waited 30 months. For voting, you get 7 months. Is there anything wrong with this picture?
Despite what you may have heard from supporters of the law, there’s no legitimate reason for the rush to enact the Voter ID requirement — because there is no voter fraud to prevent.
As part of the lawsuit against the bill currently underway in Harrisburg, the state’s own attorneys formally acknowledged that there is no reported in-person voter fraud in the state and even without a Voter ID law there isn’t any reason to expect any fraud in November. So if the rush to put the ID requirement in place isn’t about fraud, why the hurry?
It may have everything to do with the fact that this bill isn’t about preventing voter fraud as much as it is about preventing Democrats from winning elections.
This isn’t conspiracy theory territory. First, the law is completely one sided; it was passed against the vocal complaints of the Democrats, who could do nothing to stop the bill’s progress through the Republican-controlled Capitol. Second, the law bars enough likely Democratic voters that if it was in effect in 2008, Barack Obama may have lost the state. (The 785,000+ without ID is greater than Obama’s 620,478 margin of victory against John McCain.) And, third, it’s hard not to recall the top state Republican’s boast earlier this year that the Voter ID law would “allow Gov. [Mitt] Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” Finally, there’s the simple fact a law that will disenfranchise 9 percent of voters is only causing serious consternation with half of Harrisburg.
The blatant ickiness of this bill has not escaped public notice. The ACLU has filed suit at the state level, and the Department of Justice has opened an unprecedented investigation into the law on the grounds that it may result in voter suppression made illegal by the Voting Rights Act. (We’re the first non-Jim Crow state to have such a charge levied against us. So, uh, that’s a feather in our cap, I guess.)
There’s only one option: The implementation of the Voter ID law has to be delayed. Considering the state’s original estimate was that only 1 percent of voters didn’t have the necessary ID, and that turned out to be spectacularly off-base according to their own data, the original time frame needs to be re-evaluated as well.
The easiest solution is to give the requirement for ID a soft landing. Voters who go to the polls in November should be asked for their ID, but it should not be required. If they don’t have it, remind them that next year (or the year after) that ID will be required.
Having it in effect for one primary back in April as a “dry run” is not a sufficient amount of notice, especially considering how few voters actually turn out for primaries. Seven months is not a sufficient time frame. If television is important enough to warrant 30 months, there’s no way voting should only get 7.
If Gov. Corbett wants to prove once and for all that this Voter ID law is about preventing fraud and not about dirty politics, he’ll postpone its implementation.
If you’d like to convert him from analog to digital, Brandon Szuminsky can be reached at bszuminsky@heraldstandard.com.