"Every person, being eighteen years of age, being a citizen of the United States, being a resident of the State for a period of time as prescribed by the General Assembly, and being duly registered in the county of residence for a period of time prior to the day of any election as prescribed by the General Assembly, shall be entitled to vote in all federal, state, and local elections held in the county or district in which such person resides. All such requirements shall be equal and uniform across the state, and there shall be no other qualification attached to the right of suffrage." Tenn. Const. art. IV, § 1.
What the attorneys overlook, however, is the next sentence:
"The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws requiring voters to vote in the election precincts in which they may reside, and laws to secure the freedom of elections and the purity of the ballot box." Tenn. Const. art. IV, § 1 (emphasis added).
Isn't requiring the person who is about to cast his ballot to prove that he is who he says he is "secur[ing] . . . the purity of the ballot box"?
Those who fear photo i.d. requirements always cite an example of an elderly person who can't get out to get a photo i.d. But couldn't this person cast an absentee ballot? Those opposing photo i.d. will quickly respond, "The availability of absentee ballots proves photo i.d. isn't the best way to ensure the purity of the ballot box." And they might be right; but neither the wisdom of a law nor its efficacy are the tests for a law's constitutionality. As my idol Justice Scalia has said, "[A] law can be both economic folly and constitutional." CTS Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, 481 U.S. 69, 96-97 (1987) (Scalia, J. concurring).
No comments:
Post a Comment