Voter ID Laws: A Modern Day Poll Tax?

In the past, poll taxes and literary tests were the main tools used to disenfranchise minority and poor voters.  

However, current voter ID laws may just be a modern day poll tax. 

Several states, such as South Carolina, have recently passed voter ID laws making it more difficult for residents to vote.

In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld a voter ID law in Indiana in the case of Crawford  v. Marion County Election Board, where the state required residents to produce a photo ID issued by the United States Government or the state of Indiana in order to vote. Elderly Indiana residents believed those voter ID requirements created an "undue burden" preventing them from voting.  Nonetheless, the high Court disagreed. 

But - there are cities in Wisconsin where the DMV is only open 1 day a month to issue IDs. 

And don't forget that as many as 11% of eligible voters do not have government issued photo IDs. Seniors, college students, minorities, people with disabilities, and low income citizens are even more likely not to have government issued photo IDs due to the cost. Birth certificates, which are the documents needed to get IDs, are often difficult to acquire as well. 

If the goal is to have equal access to the polls, then perhaps charging any fee for a document needed to vote is arguably a poll tax.  Until this point, we thought poll taxes were a thing of the past.  Hopefully, these voter ID laws will soon be a thing of the past too. 

Read more about voter ID laws here.

 

Loving on a Day of Loving

Check out this HBO documentary coming out on Valentine's Day focusing on Mildred Loving and Richard Perry Loving of the landmark Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia.

See more here.

'White Only' Pool Sign is Still Racist

 Sign posted July 2011

The Ohio Civil Rights Commission ruled against a landlord who posted a white only pool sign.  Ohio landlord Jamie Hein, age 31, posted a white only sign at her swimming pool forcing a family to move out of its home due to the humiliation caused by the sign. Father of the child subject to this humiliation made an official complaint to the Commission.

The landlord gave the Ohio Civil Rights Commission conflicting reasons as to why she posted the sign. First Hein claimed the sign had been posted prior to the biracial child using the pool, but several witnesses  responded that Hein posted the racist sign only after the biracial child used the pool. Then, Hein claimed she was an antique collector, and she posted the sign because it was a gift. Again, several witnesses refuted Hein's reasoning by responding that Hein posted the sign to "protect her assets" because the girl's hair made the pool "cloudy."

The Commission decided the sign "restricts the social interaction between Caucasians and African-Americans and reinforces discriminatory action aimed at oppressing people of color."  This case will be referred to the Ohio Attorney General's Office and an administrative law judge to assess possible penalties and determine whether punitive damages should be awarded.

Read the full story here.