Sunday, February 19, 2012
Does the Kansas voter ID requirement violate the 24th Amendment?
See http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30174
In order to vote in Kansas one needs state photo ID. For almost everyone, that's a driver's license. The fee for a driver's license, every 4 years, is $23.00. $16 for the license, $8 for the photo, $3 for a written test. http://www.ksrevenue.org/dmvobtainingdl.html
The twenty-fourth amendment, section 1, reads:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
It seems to me that Kansas is making voting contingent on showing proof of having paid $23.00.
That seems to me, and I realize my views are biased, to be at least a prima facie violation of the 24th Amendment. The only precedent is Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 538–40, 543–44 (1965), which viewed the Amendment as barring any kind of financial obstacle to voting, under what appears to be a strong standard of review. Since lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court precedents, even those that they disagree with or think are outmoded, it would seem improper for a court not to grant an injunction at least pending appeal. On the other hand, at least two courts so far have denied injunctive relief. I cannot predict whether the current supreme court will choose to overturn Harmon.
It is also possible that there is some loophole in the statute that allows every person to vote without showing they have paid some fee. I didn't see it when I looked. I've never gotten a voting license in Kansas, and the details matter, as they also do in South Carolina, Texas,and Indiana.
I cannot predict whether the current administration will step in to enforce the constitution; I suspect that it won't. I assume it has the legal power to do so, political power is another matter. On the other hand federal jurisdiction is not my strong suit.
This is the same issue as here in Indiana,and is closely related to the issues currently being litigated in Wisconsin, where a preliminary injunction was denied but the case is proceeding to trial. I do not know whether the WI plaintiffs will appeal the denial of preliminary injunction.
Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach assures us the statute is bulletproof. He is either lying, wrong,or misquoted. Whether Kansas' voter ID program is unconstitutional is an open question, both legally and politically.
It does appear to be consistent with the state constitution, which allows the legislature to set standards for proof of citizenship for voting.
See http://electionlawblog.org/?p=30174
In order to vote in Kansas one needs state photo ID. For almost everyone, that's a driver's license. The fee for a driver's license, every 4 years, is $23.00. $16 for the license, $8 for the photo, $3 for a written test. http://www.ksrevenue.org/dmvobtainingdl.html
The twenty-fourth amendment, section 1, reads:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
It seems to me that Kansas is making voting contingent on showing proof of having paid $23.00.
That seems to me, and I realize my views are biased, to be at least a prima facie violation of the 24th Amendment. The only precedent is Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U.S. 528, 538–40, 543–44 (1965), which viewed the Amendment as barring any kind of financial obstacle to voting, under what appears to be a strong standard of review. Since lower courts are required to follow Supreme Court precedents, even those that they disagree with or think are outmoded, it would seem improper for a court not to grant an injunction at least pending appeal. On the other hand, at least two courts so far have denied injunctive relief. I cannot predict whether the current supreme court will choose to overturn Harmon.
It is also possible that there is some loophole in the statute that allows every person to vote without showing they have paid some fee. I didn't see it when I looked. I've never gotten a voting license in Kansas, and the details matter, as they also do in South Carolina, Texas,and Indiana.
I cannot predict whether the current administration will step in to enforce the constitution; I suspect that it won't. I assume it has the legal power to do so, political power is another matter. On the other hand federal jurisdiction is not my strong suit.
This is the same issue as here in Indiana,and is closely related to the issues currently being litigated in Wisconsin, where a preliminary injunction was denied but the case is proceeding to trial. I do not know whether the WI plaintiffs will appeal the denial of preliminary injunction.
Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach assures us the statute is bulletproof. He is either lying, wrong,or misquoted. Whether Kansas' voter ID program is unconstitutional is an open question, both legally and politically.
It does appear to be consistent with the state constitution, which allows the legislature to set standards for proof of citizenship for voting.
Comments:
Post a Comment
