Voter ID oral arguments to produce legal fireworks

McClatchy NewspapersSeptember 24, 2012 

WASHINGTON -- Closing arguments today about South Carolina's voter ID law will cap an extraordinary case that already has seen charges of racism directed at the law's author and federal judges' open frustration over state officials' changing stances on implementing it.

Opponents of the embattled law, which U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder blocked last year under the 1965 Voting Rights Act, will challenge the credibility of its chief author, state Rep. Allan Clemmons.

Lawyers for the voter ID law's foes, including civil rights groups, will say Clemmons took false credit for its "reasonable impediment" clause, which allows voters to cast ballots if they have "reasonable" reasons for not having photo identification. Lawyers also will say Clemmons misrepresented his relationship with a man who sent him an email about the law that the Myrtle Beach Republican acknowledged under oath last month was racist.

And the attorneys trying to kill the law will argue that S.C.Attorney General Alan Wilson and Marci Andino, executive director of the State Election Commission, lack the legal authority to implement the voter ID law in ways that contradict the law's text or other relevant state laws.

Lawyers for South Carolina will respond that the voter ID law is aimed at preventing election fraud, and they'll point to key Supreme Court rulings that states don't need to show the existence of fraud in order to take steps against it. Attorneys also will argue that state officials' plans for implementing the law aren't contradictory or at variance with its provisions.

At issue under the Voting Rights Act, which protects minorities' access to the ballot box, is whether the South Carolina law's requirement that voters possess one of five forms of photo identification would have a disproportionately harmful impact on African Americans. Of several state voter ID laws under legal scrutiny, the South Carolina case is among the most closely watched because of the state's troubled history of racial relations and because it could have national implications from an expected future U.S. Supreme Court ruling on it.

Garrard Beeney, lead attorney for the intervenors, which include civil rights groups and individual South Carolinians who claim the law would hurt them, said trial testimony last month showed that minority voters would feel its brunt. They are poorer as a whole and would have more difficulty obtaining the photo IDs, he said. "There really is no dispute from anyone at this trial that blacks are less likely than whites to have the new kinds of ID voters would have to have," Beeney told McClatchy on Friday. Chris Bartolomucci, a Washington, D.C., attorney representing the state, disputed that claim.

"The bottom line on (the law's) effect is that it's not going to prevent any lawful voter from voting, whether white or black," Bartolomucci told McClatchy.

Since President Barack Obama's 2008 election prompted record turnout by black voters, 34 state legislatures, most with Republican majorities, have taken up bills imposing stricter polling ID requirements, with 16 states passing laws. The laws vary widely, and only some of the states are among the 16 that fall wholly or partly under the Voting Rights Act, which requires the Justice Department to approve all election changes in those covered places. Voter ID laws in South Carolina and Texas are among the most high profile because they are under court challenge, and because of those states' segregationist histories.

A federal court last month rejected the Texas voter ID law, and the U.S. Supreme Court will likely decide its fate, possibly in tandem with the South Carolina law.

South Carolina sued Holder over his rejection of its law, which Gov. Nikki Haley signed in May 2011.

The Island Packet is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service