Today’s Must ReadToday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments as to whether Indiana’s voter ID law breaks the law. If a law disenfranchises thousands of voters (mostly poor and minorities) to prevent a phantom crime, is that ok?
Of course, it’s rare to hear the Republican supporters of voter ID laws admit that there’s no evidence that voter impersonation, the kind of voter fraud the laws are meant to stop, occurs.
But that’s just what happened yesterday when Warren Olney of KCRW’s To The Point pressed Todd Rokita (R), Indiana’s secretary of state and a named defendant in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board.
Have any cases of voter impersonation been prosecuted in Indiana? was the simple question. And as Olney pressed, Rokita went from one fallback argument to another. It started with this revealing exchange:
Q: …Have there been cases in Indiana where people represented themselves as somebody else in order to be able to vote?
Rokita: Oh yeah, we suspect it happens all the time.
Q: You suspect?
Rokita: Mm hmm.
Q: Have you got any cases proven?
Rokita: Well, are you saying you want to define whether or not thereâs fraud based on whether or not itâs prosecuted? Is that the question?
From there, Rokita argued that there is fraud (it “exists almost on a daily basis”), but that it’s nearly impossible to prosecute due to the ephemeral nature of the crime. And it tends not to be a priority for prosecutors due to all the other violent and horrible stuff they need to prosecute. And even if there hasn’t been any such voter fraud (and I’m not saying that there isn’t), we have a right to protect ourselves from it; “You have the right to build a firehouse before you get burned by the fire.”
It bears mentioning here that the Justice Department under George Bush has indeed made prosecuting voter fraud a priority — and came up empty. That fact hasn’t stopped voter ID law proponents from claiming hundreds of demonstrated cases of voter fraud. It’s quite a morass of innuendo, but the Brennan Center (which has filed an amicus brief with the law’s opponents) undertook the staggering task of disproving every one of those claims one by one. It’s a 75 page document (pdf).
The lawyers actually arguing the case before the court today are likely to be more eloquent than Rokita, but the arguments will essentially be the same. So take a look at the relevant excerpts from the interview below.
via Rick Hasen.
From the show:
Q: Whatâs the reason [for the law]?
Rokita: Well, the reason is we have identity theft in every facet of our lives these days. Itâs the fastest growing crime in the United States. And we have a severe confidence erosion in terms of the electorate and in terms of their use of the process, and weâve seen that ever since Bush v. Gore in Florida, 2000. And so this is along the same lines of other reforms that weâve had since that time, in fact itâs a refinement of federal law thatâs already in place.
Q: Bush v. Gore per se was not about voter fraud. Have there been cases in Indiana where people represented themselves as somebody else in order to be able to vote?
Rokita: Oh yeah, we suspect it happens all the time.
Q: You suspect?
Rokita: Mm hmm.
Q: Have you got any cases proven?
Rokita: Well, are you saying you want to define whether or not thereâs fraud based on whether or not itâs prosecuted, is that the question?
Q: Well, I guess so. What evidence is there that there is fraud, that you need to⦠so that you need to have this law?
Rokita: Well, the fraud exists almost on a daily basis, whether itâs calls to my office, whether itâs reports, or even if itâs just innuendo. The fact of the matter is it does exist. Whether itâs prosecuted is an entirely different question, and I know your question, the reason I asked your question back is because the opponents want us to believe that just because there are no prosecutions, that must mean the fraud doesnât exist. Well, the flaw in that logic is pretty obvious.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed this law, came out and said the very reason why there probably arenât very many prosecutions. One, itâs a hard type of crime to catch, because it happens and then it goes away. And unless you have something like a photo ID, itâs very hard to catch someone in the act. Number two, prosecutors in Indiana, and Iâm sure this is the case all over the country, are very busy dealing with violent crime, and well they should be. You know, thereâs spousal abuse, child abuse, a DUI, whatever it may be. What weâre finding in Indiana is that this kind of crime, because of its nonviolent nature, because of its difficulty in prosecuting, doesnât rise up the hierarchy there. So, and this is not my words, this is what the Seventh Circuit said, and I agree with it….
Q: Let me ask you again. Whatâs your evidence that this really needs to be⦠to have this kind of law?
Rokita: …Just because â I donât care if youâre an election administrator or a professor, in an office for one year or twenty or fifty â you know, our point is that just because you donât see it doesnât mean with that kind of fraud, doesnât mean that you wouldnât necessarily see â just because itâs not prosecuted because of the difficulty in the paper trail or any kind of evidence of it doesnât mean it doesnât exist. Again, identity theft is the fastest growing crime in America
Q: Howâ¦
Rokita: Now, let me finish.
Q: Sure, go ahead.
Rokita: These people would have you believe that identity theft somehow magically stops or couldnât be a problem at the polling place door. Now, letâs assume for a minute, and we donât, that â if theyâre right, thereâs a magic wand thatâs waved and the laws of human behavior and human nature stop at the polling place door and there is no fraud. You still have to acknowledge the right that the voters and taxpayers of the people of Indiana and every state have a right to protect themselves from becoming victim of something before they become a victim of it. They have a right to protect themselves from being a victim of this kind of crime. You have the right to build a firehouse before you get burned by the fireâ¦..
