Want to Vote? Identify Yourself

Deven Desai

Deven Desai is an associate professor of law and ethics at the Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology. He was also the first, and to date, only Academic Research Counsel at Google, Inc., and a Visiting Fellow at Princeton University’s Center for Information Technology Policy. He is a graduate of U.C. Berkeley and the Yale Law School. Professor Desai’s scholarship examines how business interests, new technology, and economic theories shape privacy and intellectual property law and where those arguments explain productivity or where they fail to capture society’s interest in the free flow of information and development. His work has appeared in leading law reviews and journals including the Georgetown Law Journal, Minnesota Law Review, Notre Dame Law Review, Wisconsin Law Review, and U.C. Davis Law Review.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. A.W. says:

    i am sorry, but Hasen’s analysis lost me right at the beginning when he claimed that requiring ID would reduce our confidence in the system.

    Only a partisan hack would think it would reduce confidence in our system if we ensured against fraud.

    This is a win for democracy and honesty in government. and to liken it to a poll tax is just silly. first, the express purpose of a poll tax or a literacy test is to keep black people and poor whites from voting. the purpose of an ID requirement is to prevent fraud–to keep truly undesirable from STEALING YOUR VOTE.

    to stand against ID laws is to stand up for election fraud, plain and simple. its unamerican.

  2. Aaron says:

    Ouch. It takes some doing to include “partisan hack,” “stand up for election fraud,” and “unamerican” in a single post.

    On its face, a literacy requirement promotes a literate electorate, or at least ensures that the electorate can understand the ballot. So, in that sense, to stand against a literacy requirement is to stand for an uneducated, illiterate electorate (which nobody wants). However, the practical effect of the literacy test or poll tax was to disenfranchise a large group of individuals.

    Likewise, I think that even A.W. would agree that an onerous ID requirement could be unconstitutional if it disenfranchises a large group of people. It is not difficult to imagine an exceedingly onerous ID regime: Ie, three forms of full-body Picture ID, pre-registration of biometric data, at the expense of the voter. I dare say that such an onerous law would be constitutionally invalid.

    I’m not familiar enough with the case to determine whether Indiana’s laws disenfranchise voters. Who knows– perhaps after Indiana’s next elections we may see concrete evidence that large groups of individuals didn’t vote. Hopefully not.

    Unfortunately, today’s ruling won’t help clarify the standard of review as lower courts try to grapple with this important question.