Are Voter ID's the New Poll Tax?

In an article by staff writers ("Perry calls for Obama to apologize for attorney general's 'imprudent remarks'") published today, the Austin American Statesman reports on a hot topic this presidential visit: Attorney General Eric Holder's comment in a speech to the NAACP that the Texas voter ID law (currently being challenged in federal court by the justice department) is basically a "poll tax."

Poll taxes were used to keep blacks  from exercising their voting rights during Jim Crow. Governor Perry says, “In labeling the Texas voter ID law as a “poll tax,” Eric Holder purposefully used language designed to inflame passions and incite racial tension. It was not only inappropriate, but simply incorrect on its face,” and he wants President Obama to apologize.

While the article is worth reading for basic informative purposes, in typical Austin American Statesman style, it leaves many of the questions a reader might have unanswered. It gives Governor Perry plenty of face time, but it doesn't give one reason why the Attorney General made these statements. In fact, if you were to just read this article, you would think he was out of his mind- who would challenge a law that simply asks voters to show an ID before voting?

So I googled why, and I was brought to this ABC article ( Voter ID: Poll Tax or Common Sense?). Apparently, 25% of African Americans don't have the type of ID necessary for voting, compared with just 8% of white voters. The IDs are free but the materials required to get one, such as a birth certificate, are not. To quote Jane Dailey, history professor at the University of Chicago, "The comparison is in the effects."

Let's look at the effects. According to the article:

"In the past decade Texas has convicted only six people of voter impersonation, the only type of voter fraud that its photo ID law would guard against. By comparison, the state estimates that 605,000 to 795,000 registered Texas voters do not currently have the ID required to vote"

Now it's beginning to make sense.What do you do when a law that is made with best intentions ends up excluding a population? Do you take a look at what the benefits are of the law, as weighed against the costs? Or do you, like Texas State Sen. Tommy Williams (white, male, Republican), one of the drafters of the law, brush off criticisms with an "I mean, it's (birth certificate) a very common thing that you have to have, and I don't really see it -- it's just one of the things of life." He says the law's aim is to "prevent in-person voter fraud, and to shore up people's confidence in our electoral system." Hmmm... I wonder which people he is talking about.

But then, if we were really serious at looking at all of our laws that in effect continue Jim Crow, we'd have a much bigger task at hand than one little voter ID law. And for that, we might need local politicians and media willing to admit that disenfranchising laws even still exist...