State of Georgia Voting Rights

Since the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, some states in the United States have utilized their authorities or powers under Article One of the United States Constitution to limit minority groups’ capacity to vote. The possibility for governments to embrace the use of election rules to suppress votes remains a contentious issue in current American politics, as numerous states have recently implemented questionably restrictive voter identification requirements (Conover 98). This study investigates the state of voter identification laws in Georgia, with an emphasis on evaluating their overall influence on citizens’ voting rights.  Changes to Voter Identification Laws in the State of Georgia

In April 2005, the Georgian Governor, Sonny Perdue, signed legislation that required the voters in Georgia to present a state-issued, valid photo ID for them to cast an in-person ballot. The bill got passed by the Georgian legislators, although along a predominantly party-line vote. The Georgian voters previously could present only one of the seventeen forms of ID to cast their votes, including some forms without photos, such as individuals’ utility bills (Hood 394).

In August 2005, the United States Department of Justice confirmed the new law since all the legislative changes that affect voting at the state level are subject to federal review as provided for under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, some staff attorneys raised their concern that the newly passed law could lead to a reduction in the minority turnout (Hood 95). As a result, the opponents of the new legislation, in September 2005, filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the newly passed law was unconstitutional and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the American Constitution. In fact, they linked the law’s requirement that voters get charged a given fee for state-issued photo ID to the poll taxes during the era of Jim Crow (Hood 397).

In October 2005, Harold Murphy, United States District Court judge, held that Georgia’s new voter identification law amounted to an illegal and unconstitutional poll tax, and he, therefore, stopped its enforcement. However, the Georgi’s legislature did not give up (Conover 101). In January 2006, Georgia’s legislature adopted a new voter identification law that provided free state-issued photo ID cards in all the 159 counties in Georgia, and Governor Perdue signed the new bill into law (Conover 103). Unfortunately, in July 2006, Judge Murphy stopped the enforcement of the law again, claiming that it the law was discriminative against individuals with no passports, driver’s licenses, or other government identifications. However, Judge Murphy suggested he might change his mind if the state of Georgia carried out a meaningful education to explain the implications of the law to Georgians (Conover 105).

In June 2007, the Georgia Supreme Court dismissed a separate state challenge to the new law filed by Roy Barnes, Georgia’s former Governor. Th court found that Rosalind Lake, the plaintiff, lacked standing to present the lawsuit (Hood 398). In August 2007, Karen Handel, Georgia Secretary of State, launched an outreach effort to sensitize the Georgian voters on the new photo identification law, as well as how Georgians could obtain a free photo ID (Hood 399). In September 2007, Judge Murphy found that the new law met constitutional requirements, and the law took effect in municipal elections for the first time in 23 counties in Georgia. Therefore, Georgia, which is considered one of the toughest states in the U.S., requires that every Georgian voter who wishes to vote in person has to possess a state-issued photo identification card to cast their votes and for their ballots to count (Conover 103). The photo ID is, however, not a requirement for casting an absentee ballot in Georgia. The new voter identification law faced its first statewide test in February 2008 during Georgia’s presidential preference primary (Conover 104).

Support for Georgia’s Legislative Changes

The supporters of the new voter identification law claim that the law is necessary for preventing cases of cheating that could undermine the delivery of free and fair elections. Besides, according to the supporters of the new law, it will curb rampant voter malpractice by particular categories of felons, undocumented immigrants, or many fraudulent voters with the habit of attempting to impersonate other individuals (Hood 401).

Additionally, when Georgia emerged as one of the country’s first states to demand a photo identification at the ballot box, the supporters of the new law expressed their confidence. They claimed that the law was necessary to combat voting-related fraud practices that, for a long time, had imperiled the integrity of the state’s election process (Conover 108). Also, according to a review conducted by the Atlanta Journal of Constitution, the Georgian statewide voting patterns have significantly changed since the new law first took effect. In fact, the voter turnout among the Hispanic and black voters increased dramatically between the year 2006 and 2010, outpacing the state’s population growth for the Hispanics and Blacks over the same period (Conover 111). The proponents of the new voter identification law also claim that Georgia’s top election officials have not identified any case of ballot malpractice since the enforcement of the new voter ID law (Hood 405).

The proponents of Georgia’s new voter identification law also claim that the law is consistent with the national voter identification patterns and that Georgia has not experienced any problems with the new law, implying that the law has been working to the expectations of a majority of the Georgian residents (Conover 122). According to Brim Kemp, Georgia Secretary of State, Georgia’s new photo ID law works in the best interest of the Georgian electorate. He points out that his office prosecuted about 200 election fraud cases every year before the enactment of the new law. However, since the enforcement of the new voter ID law, Kemp claims that the law has prevented all such cases and he, therefore, asserts that the new voter ID law is justified (Conover 125).

Also, the proponents of Georgia’s new voter identification law claim that the new voting rules do not have adverse effects on the voter turnout as claimed by those who are opposed to it. In fact, according to most proponents of the new voter identification law, the voter registration among the minority voters has significantly increased since the state of Georgia began the enforcement of photo identification, which has also reduced cases of early voting among the Georgian electorate (Hood 406).

Opposition to Georgia’s Legislative Changes

On the other hand, the opponents of Georgia’s new voter identification law claim that the move is a way of returning the state of Georgia to the Jim Crow-era tactic of suppressing the minority vote (Conover 126). Besides, those who are opposed to the photo ID law claim that the legislation has created measurable adverse effects on several voters. For instance, the proponents of the law argue that since the year 2008, the ballots of about 1,586 Georgian voters failed to count due to the new restrictions created by the law. In fact, some votes did not count because the voters arrived at the polling stations without photo IDs, allowed to cast provisional ballots, and failed to return to the polling station with the required photo identifications (Conover 128).

Additionally, the Democrats, who are mostly opposed to Georgia’s new voter identification law, claim that the law only targets liberal constituencies that are populated by the minorities and the poor, who have less likelihood of possessing driver’s license, passports, or other photo identifications (Hood 409). The opponents of the new voter identification law also give reference to the state of Georgia’s website, which indicates ballot malpractices such as fraudulent vote casting by absentee voters, improper actions by election officials, and voting at the wrong, none of which are addressed by the new voter identification law (Hood 411).

The opponents of Georgia’s new photo ID legislation also caution against the reliance on turnout figures as a measure of the significance of the new law. They argue that the voter turnout numbers do not take into consideration Georgians who do not have photo ID, as well as those who did not bother at all showing up to vote (Conover 131).

Evaluation of Georgia’s Legislative Changes

In my view, the changes in voter identification laws in the state of Georgia is likely to lead to voter suppression. That is because although the state provides a free photo identification card, the conditions and process of acquiring the photo identity card are onerous and complicated, especially for several African-American and Latino voters, as well as the elderly. To obtain a photo identification card, the residents of Georgia have to provide various documents indicating their identity, complete social security number, residential address, as well as U.S. citizenship. Besides, although a birth certificate or U.S. passport can be used in the issuance of the photo ID card, the voters who have misplaced their birth certificates or passports have to pay for replacements. Therefore, for most Georgians, the allegedly free voter photo ID cards are not really free.

Additionally, in my view, Georgia’s case suggests a need for greater federal regulation or oversight of the state voting laws. Emphasizing the federal supervision of the state voting laws can be helpful in creating a uniform framework for voter identification as opposed to leaving the voter identification rules entirely to the state legislators. As it stands currently, the new voter ID laws, especially in Georgia, have significantly demoralized some voters from participating in both the state and national polls due to the new restrictions that they cannot meet. The claimed dramatic increase in voter turnout between the year 2006 and 2010, in my view, was as a result of the Obama factor in the polls and not the introduction of the new voter ID law as claimed by the supporters of the new voter identification legislation. There is, therefore, a need for greater federal oversight of the state voting laws to unify the voter identification criteria.

Conclusion

The Georgia’s new voter identification law faces both criticism and support in almost an equal measure, with the proponents arguing that the state’s voting process is more secure under the new law. However, the opponents of Georgia’s new voter ID law claim that the law only targets the minority groups and is aimed at suppressing voters. In my view, the new law might lead to suppression of the electorate if the state government of Georgia fails to create easy mechanisms for the Georgians to acquire the photo ID cards. There is, therefore, a need for the relevant Georgian authorities to ensure the free issuance of the photo identity card without much restrictions if the new law is to be effective. Else, the federal oversight of the state voting laws should be intensified.

Works Cited

Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Patrick R. Miller. “How Republicans Won on Voter Identification Laws: The Roles of Strategic Reasoning and Moral Conviction*.” Social Science Quarterly (2017): 98-131. Web.

Hood, M. V., and Charles S. Bullock. “Much Ado About Nothing? An Empirical Assessment of The Georgia Voter Identification Statute.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 12.4 (2012): 394-414. Web.