VOTER ID BILL NOT AN OBSTACLE FOR
MINORITIES
By BRADLEY SCHLOZMAN
Published in the Atlantic Journal Constitution 11/25/05
Recent reports in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
have confused and misrepresented the decision-making
process at the Department of Justice concerning
preclearance of Georgia's changes to its voter
identification statute.
The leaked internal memorandum that has generated
the attention was merely a draft that did not incorporate
the analytical work and extensive research conducted
by all the attorneys assigned to the matter. Most
disturbingly, this paper has neglected to mention
that the leaked memorandum did not represent the
recommendation of the veteran career chief of the
Civil Rights Division's Voting Section, to whom
preclearance approval decisions are expressly delegated
by federal regulation.
The chief's well-grounded and solidly reasoned
recommendation, in which I concurred as the acting
assistant attorney general, was that the Georgia
statute was clearly not racially retrogressive
within the limited scope of the Voting Rights Act.
This matter arose when Georgia recently amended
its voter identification statute by changing the
number of acceptable documents that individuals
must present before voting. Georgia is one of at
least 17 states that mandate identification from
voters, and there is no evidence that such requirements
have had any adverse impact on minority voters.
Georgia's corrected data - which were not incorporated
in the leaked memo - indicate that African-American
citizens are actually slightly more likely than
white citizens to possess one of the necessary
forms of identification.
The number of eligible Georgia voters who hold
no acceptable form of photo identification is extremely
small. Indeed, almost 6.5 million Georgians hold
some form of photo identification issued by the
Department of Driver Services, a number considerably
higher than the almost 4.5 million registered voters
in the state and almost identical to the Census
Bureau's projection of Georgia's total voting age
population.
While most voters will likely rely on DDS-issued
identification at the polls, it is also important
to note that some of the other acceptable forms
of identification - student and government-employer
IDs - are held as frequently, if not more frequently,
by African-Americans than whites in Georgia, according
to the data. In other words, the best statistics
suggest that African-Americans will not be disproportionately
affected by Georgia's new voter identification
provisions.
Concerns have been raised about the $20 cost of
obtaining a driver's license/ identification card.
But the state waives the fee for anyone claiming
an inability to pay, and no effort is made to verify
indigency.
Moreover, the state has introduced a mobile licensing
center for those who prefer not to travel to a
DDS office.
Finally, this newspaper's coverage could be read
to imply that the Justice Department has come under
criticism by the courts for its preclearance decision.
The department's preclearance was not at issue
in the federal lawsuit in Georgia. Although the
district court issued a preliminary injunction
against the Georgia ID law on constitutional grounds
-issues which, under Supreme Court case law, are
entirely irrelevant to the Section 5 analysis and
are currently on appeal in the 11th Circuit - the
court also concluded there was insufficient evidence
to support a vote denial claim pursuant to the
Voting Rights Act.
Attorneys of the Voting Section have worked diligently
to enforce voting laws and have achieved concrete,
measurable advances for a record number of minority
voters. We are enormously proud of this accomplishment.
