Mich. Supreme Court Weighs Requiring ID To Vote
Mich. Supreme Court Weighs Requiring ID To Vote
UPDATED: 7:28 pm EST November 13, 2006
The state Supreme Court weighed Monday whether voters can be required to show photo identification at the polls, an issue that has divided Democrats and Republicans for a decade.
At stake is the constitutionality of a 1996 state law, renewed last year, requiring voters to show photo ID to get a ballot. The law said that if voters don't have ID, they can sign an affidavit swearing to their identity and then vote.
The law hasn't taken effect because former Attorney General Frank Kelley, a Democrat, ruled nine years ago that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right to vote.
Critics say the ID requirement would keep the poor, elderly, disabled and minorities away from the polls. But supporters, including Republicans, say it's needed to prevent election fraud.
No form of identification is now required to vote in Michigan.
The high court has agreed to issue an advisory opinion requested by the Republican-controlled state House, which means both sides of the issue were argued by Attorney General Mike Cox's office on Monday.
Assistant Attorney General Susan Leffler said requiring photo ID is a small burden for voters who often are asked to show ID in their everyday lives. She argued that making those without an ID sign an affidavit isn't much to ask to help prevent fraud and ensure confidence in the electoral process.
"I can't imagine a less minimal burden," Leffler said.
But Assistant Attorney General Ron Robinson said the law, which he called a "wolf in sheep's clothing," could harm 350,000 registered voters who don't have a driver's license or state-issued ID card. The law would automatically subject voters without identification to a challenge -- an inconvenient and embarrassing delay, Robinson said.
"This is an extreme response to a problem that does not exist in Michigan," he said of the ID requirement.
In response to a question from Justice Michael Cavanagh, Leffler acknowledged there's no evidence of widespread voter fraud but rather a "concern" about it.
Some justices on the GOP-controlled court questioned whether voters having to submit affidavits would automatically be challenged under the law. Justice Stephen Markman also said lawmakers have wanted to give registered voters who don't have an ID a state-issued card free of charge.
"Is it too much of a burden to get a free ID card and remember to bring it to the polls?" Markman asked.
The justices also grappled with what standard to apply when considering the state's interest in requiring photo ID: a tougher "strict scrutiny" test or the more lenient "rational basis" test.
The ID requirements in the 2005 law will take effect Jan. 1, but the court may rule later because there are no statewide elections coming up.
The case has attracted widespread interest, and the issue has flared up in other states. Groups or individuals who submitted friend-of-the-court briefs include both the Democratic and Republican parties, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, state legislative caucuses, the state elections bureau, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others.
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/10310432/detail.html