S.C. voter ID law takes some hits in court

Source: McClatchy

WASHINGTON — Inside and outside a federal courtroom a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol, it appeared to be a rough week for South Carolina’s bid to obtain court approval to enact its controversial voter ID law.

During five days of often dramatic testimony on the disputed law, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia repeatedly upheld objections that the state’s lawyers were asking leading questions of their witnesses or prodding them to recount third-party conversations the judges struck down as hearsay.

In a case that, under the Voting Rights Act, hinges partly on whether the voter ID law was motivated by discriminatory intent, the law’s chief architect, state Rep. Alan Clemmons, was compelled to admit he’d responded sympathetically to a racist e-mail sent to him about the measure as he was crafting it.

And Marci Andino, executive director of the State Election Commission, testified that her agency lacked the legal authority to impose on county election boards and poll workers a uniform standard on how to implement some of the disputed law’s key provisions.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.thestate.com/2012/09/01/2421471/sc-voter-id-law-takes-some-hits.html

---

Let's hope this voter ID law doesn't get court approval.


More on Andino's testimony from the Atlantic, "In South Carolina, Shockingly Candid Talk About Voter Discrimination":

On Wednesday morning, Beeney questioned Andino about the status of registered voters who come to vote on Election Day without the new form of photo identification required by the new law. Those registered voters may be permitted -- the emphasis is on the word "may" because local officials seem to have a great deal of discretion to make that call -- to cast a provisional ballot if they state they had a "reasonable impediment" to getting the new identification cards.

Those provisional ballots, in turn, may then be challenged (by anyone) on the basis that the provisional voter didn't have a "reasonable impediment" after all. The challenges are heard and resolved on the Friday following the election -- one day in advance of the "certification" of the election results that occurs on Saturday. Andino testified that South Carolina notifies provisional voters of this hearing by mail between Tuesday's election and Friday (which doesn't leave much time for the postman, does it?).

A provisional voter isn't told that his or her vote has been challenged. The provisional voter is simply told there will be a hearing. So if that voter wants to defend his or her "reasonable impediment" declaration, the voter has to go to the county seat on the Friday following the election to make sure that his or her vote will be counted. Of course, a lack of transportation, public or otherwise, is likely to have been one of the biggest reasons why that voter could not get his or her new identification in the first place.

-snip-

Beeney: And so if I was a poll watcher, I get to watch what goes on at the table, the check-in table where all this is happening, right?

Andino: Yes.

Beeney: And if I wanted to, for whatever reason I may have, I could write down the name of every African American who voted by reasonable impediment and show up on Friday and challenge every one of those if I wanted to, right?

Andino: Yes.

Beeney: And there's no way that our hypothetical African American voter who's getting challenged would have any idea in the world that that's what's happening, is that correct?

Andino: That's correct.

-snip-

The Atlantic article points out that this new law "practically begs partisan poll watchers to challenge every such provisional ballot so as to place the burden on the registered voter to twice prove his or her voting rights."

The conclusion of the article notes that the law isn't Andino's fault -- she's just the poor bureaucrat left trying to explain it. But that doesn't change the fact that this new law "isn't about protecting against voter fraud" but instead is "all about taking away the vote from minorities, the poor, and the ill -- taking it away from people who have voted without incident for decades."