Voter ID laws could deter would-be voters

If this AP article is any indication, the shenanigans of Republican governors and legislators in voter suppression (Florida's purge, a stunning admission from a Pennsylvania lawmaker) is going to be a key story this election cycle. That's largely because of the individual stories, like this one:

When Edward and Mary Weidenbener went to vote in Indiana's primary in May, they didn't realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver's license or passport.

The husband and wife, both approaching 90 years old, had to use a temporary ballot that would be verified later, even though they knew the people working the polling site that day. Unaware that Indiana law obligated them to follow up with the county election board, the Weidenbeners ultimately had their votes rejected'news to them until informed recently by an Associated Press reporter.

Edward Weidenbener, a World War II veteran who had voted for Mitt Romney in the Republican presidential contest, said he was surprised by the rules and the consequences.

"A lot of people don't have a photo ID. They'll be automatically disenfranchised," he said.

The Weidenbeners represent just one chunk of disenfranchised voters: those who cast ballots that were thrown out. This couple didn't know they were supposed to follow up, in person, with the county. Plenty more could be aware of that requirement but just don't have the time to deal with the red tape, so their votes will just be wasted.

This is definitely a part of the Republican plan to suppress the vote: make it as burdensome as possible to prevent as many people as possible from voting. Barring that, disqualify as many votes that are cast as possible. In reporting this story, AP reviewed temporary, or provisional ballots from 2008 in two states'Indiana and Georgia. In just those states, they found that more than 1,200 votes were thrown out. That's enough certainly to change local elections. And don't forget the 2000 presidential election was decided by just 537 votes in Florida (and, of course, one vote on the Supreme Court).

The article points out that the purported reason for all this disenfranchisement is preventing fraud, but that even a report from the Republican National Lawyers Association conducted last year to try to build support for voter suppression laws found just 400 election fraud prosecutions nationally in the last decade, "not even one per state per year." For that, as many as five million voters could be disenfranchised this year through barriers to registration, more cumbersome absentee balloting procedures, fewer polling places, reduced early voting periods, and even having their legitimate votes thrown out.

Keesha Gaskins, a senior counsel at the Brennan Center, responded to the story of the Weidenbeners for the story, and pointed out that, compared to supposed voter fraud, this is a much larger problem.

"These are still people who attempted to vote and who were unable to do so," Gaskins said. "When you compare that to the actual evidence of fraud, the difference is exponential."