On voter rights

The Supreme Court recently overturned part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a landmark civil rights law. The part that has been cut, Section 5, has to do with preclearance. In the past, this has affected parts of or the whole of 15 states (predominantly southern states) that have a bad track record when it comes to discriminatory voting laws, such as literacy requirements or poll taxes. These states have to get federal approval in order to change their voting laws, while the rest of the states do not.

The majority of the Voting Right Act stands, but was it appropriate to cut out this section? Shelby County v. Holder was a 5-4 decision, as all the fun Supreme Court decisions are, so clearly it's a controversial topic. And here on Politics & Other Things That Don't Matter, we love controversy! (I don't know who "we" is. It's just me here. Allllll byyyyy myself...) So, I'm going to get to my judgement on this but not before I discuss less recent issues concerning voting rights.

Voter ID laws were all the rage this past election cycle. The attempted amendment in Minnesota failed, but one like it passed in many other states. These laws were meant to combat the nonexistent epidemic of voter fraud. Admittedly, it could be a problem. A person could very easily vote as someone else, but let's think about that. It's risky. What if the person whose vote you're attempting to steal has already voted? If you're caught, it's a federal offense. You're in trouble. If you're not caught, what do you gain? An extra handful of votes for your candidate of choice? It's not hard to tell why voter fraud doesn't happen more often. It's just not practical, as far as crimes go. But it's a textbook case of manufactured-hysteria. Like, how despicable is that, someone stealing your vote? Your vote is your voice, for heaven's sake! If you can no longer count on having one vote, just one vote, what is safe? Nothing. See? I'm actually surprised it didn't pass in Minnesota with that kind of appeal on its side. 

So, here's my two cents on voter ID. I'd be a-okay with an identification requirement at polling places if and only if people without IDs can receive a free one from the government for the express purpose of voting hassle free. Because requiring someone to get an ID, which does cost a little bit of money, in order to vote is a poll tax. And poll taxes, as you may know, are unconstitutional. I don't care if it costs 25 cents to get a state ID. No one should have to pay a single cent in order to vote. All you need is your citizenship, and if states begin to insist that you also need an ID, well, they better make it free. 

Deep breath. Okay. Let's tackle preclearance and Shelby County v. Holder. I'm writing this on the plane from Boston to Minneapolis and my mom's trying to guilt me into changing my opinion, but this is my opinion. I think it's unfair to single out these states for their past actions. Because even if they continue to pass discriminatory laws in the future, other states that are not being monitored are already doing it - and they get away with it. Discrimination is not confined to the south, so even though I can be as much of a snobby northerner as the best of them, let's treat these southern states the same as the rest. But eliminating Section 5 should be the first step. 

The next step needs to be making sure that no state can pass blatantly discriminatory voting laws. So why not subject all states to preclearance? This is probably too much federal interference for most people to swallow, but for me it's the obvious compromise. Too bad compromise is dead. Where's Henry Clay when you need him? Well, dead, I guess.

So that's where I stand on recent voter rights issues. Maybe we can get things cleared up before the next presidential election, but that would be an uncharacteristically efficient and productive use of the government.