Asian Americans Disappointed in Court’s Voter ID Case

Today, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), a 34-year old national civil rights organization, expressed its dismay with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in two consolidated cases, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, which rejected a constitutional challenge to the Indiana law requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification before they can vote. 

AALDEF, with pro bono co-counsel Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, had filed an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the Supreme Court on behalf of twenty-five Asian American groups, detailing the problems of restrictive voter ID laws, especially for racial and language minority voters.

Margaret Fung, AALDEF executive director, said, “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court failed to recognize the real-life impacts of voter ID laws in deterring Asian American and other minority citizens from exercising their right to vote.”

AALDEF and the Asian American groups have monitored elections across the country over the last decade and found that voter ID requirements have discriminatory impacts on Asian American voters.  AALDEF’s  exit poll of almost 11,000 Asian American voters in 23 cities in eight states in the 2004 elections revealed how voter ID laws place additional burdens on the right to vote:

-In New York, identification is not required to vote, but 23% of all Asian American voters surveyed were asked to show ID.  Of those, 69% were not required to do so under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires only a limited group of first-time voters to present ID.  In Chinatown, a police officer turned away all Asian American voters who did not have a photo ID with them.

-In New Jersey, where identification is not required to vote, 25% of all voters surveyed had to provide identification; of those voters, 51% were not required to show ID under HAVA.  One elderly first-time Korean American voter was asked to provide several forms of identification.  After he presented his voter registration card and other documents from the Board of Elections, he was still required to show a driver’s license, utility bills, and other forms of ID before he could vote.

-In Massachusetts, 24% of Asian American voters were asked to show identification; of those, 57% were not required to show ID under HAVA.  One voter presented his United States passport but was told that it was insufficient.  The voter was turned away.

-In Virginia, where some form of identification is required from all voters, a South Asian voter complained that he was asked to show identification, but his white companion was not required to show any identification whatsoever.

Glenn D. Magpantay, AALDEF staff attorney, said, “AALDEF will continue to monitor poll sites to ensure that such requirements are not misapplied and not applied only to Asian American voters.”

bh

POSTSCRIPT

MALDEF CONDEMNS U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION THAT JEOPARDIZES VOTERSAPRIL 30, 2008 – On Monday, the United States Supreme Court failed American voters by upholding a state law in Indiana requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls on Election Day. The Court concluded that Indiana’s photo ID requirement, which provided for free identification cards and made exceptions for indigent voters and nursing home residents, did not burden voters. MALDEF had filed a “friend of the court” brief in the case, arguing that the Indiana law should be struck down as unconstitutional. The 6-to-3 Supreme Court ruling was one of the most anticipated election-law cases since the Bush v. Gore 2000 decision. This decision will potentially disenfranchise thousands of voters in the upcoming Indiana Primary Election as well as on Election Day in November. “Elderly and minority citizens will be hardest hit by the Court’s decision. MALDEF will continue the fight to protect the right to vote without unnecessary obstacles placed before citizens. Our challenge to Arizona’s Proposition 200 moves forward in the courts and we will there if Congress or state legislatures use this opinion to justify similar voter restriction laws around the nation,” stated MALDEF President and General Counsel John Trasviña. “Indiana’s voter ID requirement excludes many eligible voters while sending the wrong message to lawmakers in other states; it is never fair to deny the ballot to a voter who is qualified, particularly when the state has no evidence of voter fraud to justify its onerous policy,” said Nina Perales, MALDEF Southwest Regional Counsel. KJ