It has been a record year for new legislation designed to make it harder for many citizens to vote including 19 laws and two executive actions in 14 states dominated by Republicans. As a result, more than five million eligible voters will have a harder time participating in the 2012 election. With the recently established voter ID laws enacted to prevent voter fraud, several states gained unwanted attention, starting with Pennsylvania.
In March 2012,
Pennsylvania became the first state to enact a voter ID law. The affects of the law have been disastrous. Not only has
the law affected the 700,000+ Pennsylvanians who currently lack a photo ID,
but it also harms
those who still need an ID to vote but object to having their picture taken for
religious reasons, like the Amish and Mennonite communities. They can use a non
photo ID to vote, but only after completing an interrogation about their faith.
This examination
includes questions such as: How many members are there of your religion? How
many congregations? What’s the process
by which you came to the religion? What religious practices do you
observe? Do other family members hold
the same religious beliefs? Along with submitting that form notarized,
applicants must fill out another form. Going through this process is essential if those who hold religious
objections to being photographed want to vote.
Personally, I
think Pennsylvania has gone too far. The questions that these groups are asked
to answer are difficult to answer and are over and above what is needed. The
state shouldn’t have the right to delve in such personal religious matters. It
seems now the state has granted itself the will to decide if you are religious
enough to have your request granted. Through
these actions, denying a request for a non photo ID based on answers to these
questions puts the state in a tenuous position. There has to be another more efficient
way of handling this situation without blatantly stepping on toes.
With that
said, I do feel that there should be one rule for everyone. What is the point
of establishing laws if we allow people to be exempt from them merely based on
their religious beliefs? Also, The Constitution which contains many phrases,
clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to
vote, does not implicitly give us the right to vote. It does state that you
cannot be denied the right to vote because of race or gender. It also requires
that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People,"
and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the abovementioned
amendments many times. Aside from these requirements, though, the
qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the
qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right
can be withheld. Any right of action based on belief cannot be supreme.
Therefore, the right to practice a religion cannot mean that any individual or
organization should be allowed to do whatever they want and justify it by
hiding behind their religious beliefs. There is nothing automatically sacred
about action based on religious beliefs, no matter how sincere. It is clear in the Constitution that religious laws of God are
separate from the Laws of Man.
11 comments:
This is an interesting article and I would be curious to see how it plays out. On one hand, having people show a picture ID cuts down on voter fraud. I wouldn't want someone taking my vote from me! On the other hand, Pennsylvania has a high Amish and Mennonite population and so they do not have photo ID. The questions a person has to go through to be allowed to vote without the photo ID are invasive and unnecessary, I believe. There has to be some compromise available. What that compromise is, I don't know, but I hope Pennsylvania is able to figure something out.
The questions asked do seem alarmingly probing, but I'm not really sure what they can do about it. The reason for that non-photo ID cards are hard to obtain is that they are can be easily used by criminals to commit fraud, like taking out loans under a false name. The State's compelling interest is to make sure that the people using these non-photo IDs are doing so for a legitimate religious reason. With that compelling interest, it would be hard for any judges to rule for the potential plaintiffs if someone takes this to court.
The state does have an undeniably compelling interest in this situation to prevent fraud. America prides itself on its democratic processes, so what message are these state governments sending when they complicate the voting process for so many of their citizens? I agree with Catherine that there could be a compromise worked out, although I'm not completely sure what it is.
However, the intrusive questions used to get a non-photo ID definitely constitute excessive entanglement between the government and religion. A non-photo ID could be an option for all Americans with background check, etc. irregardless of religious affiliation to reconcile this entanglement.
Definitely an interesting article, and one which incorporates a lot of the lessons from class. I think that if the facial neutrality standard was applied here, there would be no problem. The intention of the law is to reduce voter fraud, not impose on the rights of the religious. The federal and state RFRAs could be more problematic for the law, however. It could be said that the law has placed an undue burden on the religious practices of the Amish, among others. The test that they have to take is also very offensive. It will be interesting to see where this case ends up.
What an interesting post! I think that the state has a substantial compelling interest to pass this kind of law and to establish rules that help mitigate voter ID fraud. Even though there is a burden on people whose religious beliefs keep them from complying with this law, the state has provided them with an accommodation to meet their needs. As suggested, if the Amish and Mennonite population do not like this law they can vote for different legislators that will help pass laws that will make further concessions to meet their needs.
The voter ID law was probably intended to be a simple solution to voter ID fraud. I agree that the questions asked of the Amish and Mennonites were excessive and invasive. It appears that the burden has equally fallen on the local governments where these communities are located in order to resolve, or accommodate, this issue.
The voter ID law was probably intended to be a simple solution to voter ID fraud. I agree that the questions asked of the Amish and Mennonites were excessive and invasive. It appears that the burden has equally fallen on the local governments where these communities are located in order to resolve, or accommodate, this issue.
I think that this whole idea to prevent voters fraud is BS, However this is a good enough reason for the state of Pennsylvania to alter or become stricter on there voter laws. I honestly believe that the questions ask by the religious individuals about there faith is ridiculous and it seems like the state is trying to determine if a person is religious enough to be considered to be a voter. Once again the authority that's the state is excessive. One could argue that religious people shouldn't be able to have certain privileges because of their religious faith, but I don't think this is one of those situations.
The government does show us that they feel that preventing voter ID fraud is a compelling government interest, and I would have to agree. The point of voting for laws is that “the people” have the ability to change the laws and rules of the state and to further claim their rights as citizens of the US. There is definitely a neutrality case at hand here where the government doesn’t not want to favor any religion, yet is catering to all religions by making other ways possible for those voters that do not have photo ID. Interesting case to follow to the end.
I understand line have to be drawn with law, but the invasive and extensive questioning to uphold one law is crossing the lines drawn by another law. I am torn; I believe this could be considered as unconstitutional or constitutional. It is tough because the state is defining religion and a person's sincerity and legitimacy through the questions, but the state also has a compelling interest, it has to protect the state and its inhabitants from ID fraud and voter fraud. There has to be another way to determine ID other than these questions!
Post a Comment