This previous year was one that sparked new discourse on democracy due to global democracy movements and changes within our own political systems, but it is my hope that 2012 will be the year we place an even higher value on democratic participation. Now, before you pull out your POSC 104 textbooks and remind me that we do, in fact, live in a representative republic, know that I am defining “democracy” in a more philosophical sense that emphasizes political participation by the people.
In 2012 we will watch the Arab Spring nations continue the messy work of cultivating democracy. We will watch the Republican field of presidential hopefuls continue to narrow, and we will decide between President Obama and a GOP nominee in the November general election. We will continue to debate the effects of Citizens United on our democratic process, and hear the voices of the Occupy movement as it shifts into occupying Congressional offices and more political spaces.
This is also the year that Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas will require a state-approved ID to be shown at the ballot box. South Carolina, which has also attempted to pass such legislation, has had its legislation blocked by the Department of Justice.
At first glance, the justification of reducing voter fraud might appear to be a worthy goal, and we might assume that voters without IDs can acquire them easily. However, such laws end up creating more inequality in the system that governs one of our most basic rights, disproportionately disenfranchising the poor, students, the elderly and minorities.
Furthermore, no state has produced evidence of voter fraud, ignoring studies conducted by a Bush administration commission on voting fraud, as well as a study conducted by The Brennan Center for Justice that conclusively found that very little polling-place fraud exists. When a law suppresses the civil rights of any group, a huge burden falls on supporters to prove an overwhelming need for such laws. There is also a burden to make obtaining the necessary documents easier, such as phasing in the requirement over time or by decreasing time or costs to obtain an ID.
Each state’s proposed measures vary slightly in terms of which forms of photo ID would be accepted. The numbers crunched by the Department of Justice measure the disproportionate effects these laws would have on minority voters. According to the South Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, for instance, minority voters are 20 percent less likely to have the necessary ID, and more than one-third of such voters would be effectively silenced from the democratic process.
In South Carolina and Tennessee, the necessary IDs do not include student IDs, credit cards with pictures or Medicare cards. Obtaining the necessary ID is more difficult than voters with IDs might assume. The Brennan Center cites that 7 percent of eligible voters do not have ready access to attain the state-mandated ID. Many voters in cities with public transportation do not have driver’s licenses. Even if the incidence of voter fraud were higher, taking away the fundamental individual voting rights of a veteran who is unable to stand in line at the DMV office to receive a state-approved ID, a 93-year-old woman who never received an official birth certificate because she was delivered by a midwife or a 96-year-old who, according to the Washingon Post, was denied the right to vote because she was unable to find her marriage license that matched the name she originally registered under, cannot be justified.
It’s easy to assume that others enjoy the same ease of democratic participation as we do in our privileged Malibu bubble. Even though many of us are Californians who are not affected by these laws, Pepperdine’s ideals of service should dictate that we care about creating laws that extend a voice to all people in the political system. Think back to the last time you spoke out on an issue that impacted you. Maybe you recently called your representatives or senators to urge them to vote against SOPA, or maybe you recently signed the change.org petition calling for Pepperdine to reverse its denial of Reach OUT. Ultimately, the same right you have to influence the policies that most affect you must be granted to everyone if our democratic ideals are to survive.
