Exacerbating the already tempestuous situation surrounding who can and cannot vote is the rise of illegal or undocumented immigrants as a top-tier presidential campaign issue. This debate, over whether social benefits like health care or education or civic benefits like voting should be extended to illegal or undocumented immigrants, appears to be turning into the powerful, polarizing, election-year wedge issue many predict will further divide the right from the left in American politics.

The complete amici curiae brief (ACB) can be found here.

FRIENDS OF THE COURT FRAME THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST VOTER ID LAWS  

In addition to Brunner of Ohio, SOSers representing the State's of Georgia, Maryland, Missouri and Vermont joined in the brief. As statutory agents overseeing their state's elections, the quintet's position on the controversial issue is this:

"Their experience show that there is virtually no evidence of polling place voter impersonation fraud, the stated reason for enactment of the Indiana law at issue here; that laws like Indiana's will effectively disenfranchise many eligible voters, particularly minorities, women, the elderly the disabled, and the poor, while doing nothing to prevent polling place voter-impersonation fraud." ACB

Moreover, the SOSers agreed that, in their states and throughout the country, "honest elections, free of polling place voter-impersonation fraud, are held without onerous photo identification requirements of the type imposed by the State of Indiana.", which has defended the law as a way to combat voter fraud.

The SOSers said that Indiana's law places the burden of proving identify on the individual voter with a "limited limited range of government-issued photo identification, even where there is no basis to question the voter's eligibility or identity, or to suspect that the voter is attempting to impersonate another, and even where election officials have adequate alternative means of identifying the voter."

Making matters worse, obtaining the limited range of identification is a cost to each individual in terms of time and money that "severely burden the right to vote and impermissibly and unnecessarily condition the exercise of that right on the voter's disbursement of funds and ability to overcome substantial bureaucratic requirements."

They say the result of forcing individuals to invest all this time and spend all this money will "prevent hundreds of thousands of citizens from exercising their fundamental right to vote, especially poor, minority, elderly, disabled, and female voters."

Is it any wonder then that a recent story this one, about the backlog of 1.4 million appeals by immigrants waiting to become citizens is adding to the perception that some government officials don't want some would-be citizens to vote in next year's presidential election, possibly fearing they will vote for a Democrat, whose policy maybe contrary to that of a Republican like Rudy Giuliani who says he will "end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation."

Driving a stake through the heart of the false specter of massive voter fraud, as reiterated by Republicans whose dominance of many state legislatures resulted in a platoon of Indiana-like laws being passed in 2005 in Indiana and 2006 in Ohio, was the amici's argument that "there is little or no evidence in Indiana or in other States that polling place voter impersonation fraud occurs at all, much less that preventing this type of voting fraud is a compelling state interest."

Continuing, they say that the specter of polling place voter impersonation fraud cannot justify the very real burdens imposed on eligible voters by photo identification requirements."

The bottom line of the amici quintet is that elections cannot be fair if eligible voters are prevented from voting.

OHIO'S VOTER ID LAW FLAWED BEFORE ELECTION

In early 2006, then-governor Bob Taft, a Republican, signed into law a bill passed mostly along party lines. The main focus of the bill was to force voters to bring acceptable identification before casting a ballot in the 2006 general election.

Supporters of the bill, like Republican House Rep. Kevin DeWine, said the law was enacted to improve confidence in the election process.

"The integrity of the system is more important than voter convenience." DeWine, Columbus Dispatch

Democratic opponents of the bill, like Cincinnati House Rep. Steven Driehuas, were quoted saying it was more about Republicans trying to retain power than about election system integrity.

"It's beyond the scope of reason that this ID requirement will do anything but turn people away from the polls." Driehaus, Columbus Dispatch

But as the election of 2006 neared, a fuselage of motions and counter motions over the law finally resulted in U.S. District Court Judge Algenon L. Marbley issuing a ruling alleviating confusion created by conflicting court decisions and inconsistent application of the new rules by county boards of elections. Other reports, like this one, show just how confusing Ohio's law had become.

For anyone who has the inclination and time to wade through the debris field produced by Ohio's voter ID law, this site has it all and more.

John Michael Spinelli is a former Ohio Statehouse government and political reporter and business columnist. He now serves as the OhioNews Bureau Chief for ePluribus Media Journal.