United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Re: S. 565/The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001
Dear Senator:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) strongly urges you to oppose S.565, the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001, amended as the Martin Luther King, Jr. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001. While S.565 could have been an important step in addressing election reform issues critical to our democracy, instead it exacerbates the very problems the legislation was intended to correct -- to ensure that every citizen entitled to vote can vote and have their vote counted. Further, this legislation moves America backwards in the struggle for voting rights. Three aspects of the bill threaten voting rights: the identification requirements, the lack of protections for existing voting rights laws, and the 6-year delay of enforcement of the national standards contained within the bill.
The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 is the first major piece of civil rights legislation the Senate has taken up in the 107th Congress. We urge you to carefully consider the negative implications associated with passing provisions that will undermine critical advances our country has made in voting rights through many years of struggle. While this legislation would authorize much needed funding to states and local governments to improve their election systems, it simultaneously imposes photo identification requirements that will effectively suppress voter participation. New machines are useless if policies are enacted that prevent people from voting on them. Not only will an identification requirement create an administrative nightmare for election officials, but it will also force them to treat first time voters who register by mail differently from other voters.
Photo Identification Requirements
As with the other methods of disenfranchisement in our history, such as literacy test and poll taxes, the photo identification requirement would present another barrier to voting and have a chilling effect on voter participation. There are voters who simply do not have identification and requiring them to purchase identification would be tantamount to requiring them to pay a poll tax. A disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minority voters, seniors, homeless people, as well as voters with disabilities, do not have identification or the financial means to acquire it. The burden of this requirement would fall disproportionately and unfairly upon them, perhaps even violating the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. ยง 1973. Further, the limited alternatives to photo identification provided in the bill - including a government check or government document, utility bill, or bank statement that shows the name and address of the voter -- place the poor in no better position. American citizens should not be denied the constitutional right to vote because they are poor.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has consistently raised objections to the use of photo identification as a prerequisite for voting because the imposition of such requirements are likely to have a disproportionately adverse impact on black voters and will lessen their political participation opportunities. In 1994, DOJ found that African-American persons in Louisiana were four to five times less likely than white persons to have driver's licenses or other picture identification cards. In addition, the Federal Elections Commission noted in its 1997 report to Congress that photo identification entails major expenses, both initially and in maintenance, and presents an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens in exercising their basic right to vote.
In addition, the photo identification requirements present obstacles for our country's youngest voters, students. At least 1.5 million college students are currently attending school out-of-state and many of them do not have documentation or a photo ID that displays a local address. Many students have numerous roommates and move multiple times during the course of their college career which makes it difficult to have photo identification with a current address. Beyond this, many students live in dormitories or room with others and have no utility bill in their name. Voter participation among young adults is already low and has steadily declined since 1972. Imposing additional barriers could further decrease student participation in the political process. Instead of embracing young voters, this bill erects additional obstacles and discourages political participation among the very group who will lead our country into the next century, our youth.
While it has been suggested that the purpose for imposing identification requirements is to ensure integrity in the voting process, there has been no evidence to suggest that voter fraud is a national problem that merits federal legislation. According to statistics from the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice only 7 cases of voter registration fraud were prosecuted in the last 10 years. No cases were brought in the seven years following the passage of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
Preserving Existing Voting Rights Laws
Notwithstanding the photo identification requirement, maintaining the voting protections of existing law is vitally important. The last major Voting Rights bill passed in Congress, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, provides that it does not "supersede, restrict or limit the application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965," and that it does not "authoriz[e] or requir[e] conduct that is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965." In contrast, a provision of the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001 appears not only to conflict with the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, but this legislation contains a "savings clause" that creates a legal loophole that will allow it to supercede existing voting rights laws. This clause greatly undermines the efforts of Dr. Martin L. King, the person after whom this bill is named, to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Enforcement
The third problem area pertains to the delayed enforcement. Although S. 565 requires compliance with federal standards by 2006, the Department of Justice is prohibited from initiating a civil action against states to compel compliance with federal standards until 2010. This prohibition creates a safe harbor for states and allows them the avoid complying with federal standards until 2010, even after having received billions of dollars to comply with such standards.
During the 2000 presidential election, millions American citizens were unable to vote due to technical problems, voter intimidation, voter suppression, and voter disenfranchisement. Congress now has a unique opportunity to correct these constitutional problems by passing effective legislation that will address the problems realized in the 2000 election. Without amending this bill to remedy the problems outlined above, this bill does more harm than good. Further, the unanimous consent agreement does not include an adequate solution to address the concerns raised in this letter; therefore, we strongly urge you to vote "no" on final passage of S.565.
Sincerely,
Laura W. Murphy
Director
LaShawn Y. Warren
Legislative Counsel