april 28, 2008
Young Voters Codemn Supreme Court Decision on Voter ID Law
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a particularly discriminating election law today; the case, appealed in the seventh circuit court, requires registered voters in the state of Indiana to provide a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.
Although the implications of mandating a photo ID might seem benign given their ubiquitous use in airports, government agencies and banks, there are tens of thousands of indigent, non-driving, non-traveling, and non-banking Americans—both young and old—who do not possess such documentation. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan estimates that in her state alone, some 200,000 eligible voters do not possess driver's licenses or any similar forms of photo identification.
Justice John Paul Steven’s remarks were troubling: “[The law] is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” he said.
Yet there is little integrity in the precedent it sets for student voters. In a hearing held by the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) this past July, several college students testified about the inability to prove domicile in their college districts merely because their photo ID was from a different part of the state or another state entirely. Photo ID laws can therefore prevent out-of-state college students from registering in the district where they attend school. The substitutions for a photo ID are also not easily obtainable because colleges and universities generally pay utility and other bills for students that live in dormitories.
Unless students are to change their out-of state drivers licenses or residency entirely, many young voters will be forced to vote absentee or provisionally, lowering voter efficacy and making the registration process more bureaucratic, time-consuming, and cumbersome. Changing state residency can also create complications for out-of-state students on certain scholarship guidelines or financial aid contracts.
“I am deeply disturbed by the prospect that voter ID laws are not considered an access barrier,” said Matthew Segal, the executive director of SAVE. “I know from hundreds of conversations, testimony at our hearing, and evidence on the ground that voter ID laws have deterred out-of-state residents from voting where they attend school nine months of the year. In light of fantastic youth turnout in both presidential primaries, I am skeptical of our ability to maintain momentum as we move forward with this disproportionately discriminatory law.”
SAVE is a non-partisan, non-profit organization on over 25 college campuses, founded and run by students, with a mission to increase youth voter turnout by removing access barriers and promoting stronger civic education. To learn more, please visit www.savevoting.org.
Contact: Matthew Segal, SAVE Executive Director, 847-502-5012
matthew.segal@savevoting.org
Young Voters Codemn Supreme Court Decision on Voter ID Law
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a particularly discriminating election law today; the case, appealed in the seventh circuit court, requires registered voters in the state of Indiana to provide a government-issued photo ID in order to cast a ballot.
Although the implications of mandating a photo ID might seem benign given their ubiquitous use in airports, government agencies and banks, there are tens of thousands of indigent, non-driving, non-traveling, and non-banking Americans—both young and old—who do not possess such documentation. Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan estimates that in her state alone, some 200,000 eligible voters do not possess driver's licenses or any similar forms of photo identification.
Justice John Paul Steven’s remarks were troubling: “[The law] is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” he said.
Yet there is little integrity in the precedent it sets for student voters. In a hearing held by the Student Association for Voter Empowerment (SAVE) this past July, several college students testified about the inability to prove domicile in their college districts merely because their photo ID was from a different part of the state or another state entirely. Photo ID laws can therefore prevent out-of-state college students from registering in the district where they attend school. The substitutions for a photo ID are also not easily obtainable because colleges and universities generally pay utility and other bills for students that live in dormitories.
Unless students are to change their out-of state drivers licenses or residency entirely, many young voters will be forced to vote absentee or provisionally, lowering voter efficacy and making the registration process more bureaucratic, time-consuming, and cumbersome. Changing state residency can also create complications for out-of-state students on certain scholarship guidelines or financial aid contracts.
“I am deeply disturbed by the prospect that voter ID laws are not considered an access barrier,” said Matthew Segal, the executive director of SAVE. “I know from hundreds of conversations, testimony at our hearing, and evidence on the ground that voter ID laws have deterred out-of-state residents from voting where they attend school nine months of the year. In light of fantastic youth turnout in both presidential primaries, I am skeptical of our ability to maintain momentum as we move forward with this disproportionately discriminatory law.”
SAVE is a non-partisan, non-profit organization on over 25 college campuses, founded and run by students, with a mission to increase youth voter turnout by removing access barriers and promoting stronger civic education. To learn more, please visit www.savevoting.org.
Contact: Matthew Segal, SAVE Executive Director, 847-502-5012
matthew.segal@savevoting.org
