There were eight states this year that passed some version of a law requiring photo identification for all voters. South Carolina was one of them, but hopefully not for long.
The Department of Justice on Friday blocked South Carolina’s law, which it said would have disproportionately affected thousands of minority voters.
Because South Carolina has a sorry history of discrimination, it is required under the federal Voting Rights Act to have any changes in its voting laws approved by the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington.
The law requires voters to have a government-issued photo ID. If that sounds simple enough to you, it’s not for tens of thousands of minorities, students, elderly and low-income residents who are registered to vote, but for various legitimate reasons, do not have a government-issued ID. Right now, all they need to cast a ballot is a voter registration card and a signature at their polling station.
“This law shows why the Voting Rights Act is still needed to combat voter suppression,” said Katie O’Connor, a staff attorney with the ACLU Voting Rights Project. “This is the first time in 17 years the government has stepped in to block a voter ID law. It was the right move at the right time.”
The ACLU and a coalition of civil rights groups had asked the Justice Department to block the law on the grounds it would have placed a greater burden on minority residents than white residents.
When the DOJ ruling came down Friday, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley squawked about a “terribly clearly political decision” that infringed on the state’s 10th Amendment rights. She’s vowed a court appeal. What Haley didn’t say were how laws like this one trample on residents’ 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law, and the 24th Amendment prohibition against a poll tax, for starters.
How can Haley suggest that her state’s rights, which she purports are being violated, are more important than the right of every eligible resident to vote? There can be many answers — some more cynical than others — especially during an election season. But fundamental freedoms should trump calculated political moves every time. The Voting Rights Act and, by extension, the Justice Department, have seen to that.
Learn more about voter suppression: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Voting Rights
Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?Election Day is Over. Why is the Electoral College Voting Now?
The Electoral College meets December 17th to certify the results of the 2024 election, but why? The ACLU breaks down if the process is worth keeping. -
New York Supreme CourtDec 2024
Voting Rights
New York Communities for Change v. Nassau CountyNew York Communities for Change v. Nassau County
This case in New York state court centers on the landmark John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA) and the New York Municipal Home Rule Law (MHRL). The NYVRA, like several other state voting rights acts enacted in recent years, expands upon the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racial vote dilution. The MHRL prohibits racial discrimination and partisan gerrymandering in local-level redistricting. The ACLU’s Voting Rights Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the New York Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Steptoe LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of voters of color in Nassau County, New York alleging that a redistricting plan implemented in 2023 for Nassau County’s legislative districts dilutes the voting strength of Black, Latino, and Asian residents and is gerrymandered for partisan advantage in violation of the NYVRA and the MHRL. -
ArizonaNov 2024
Voting Rights
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. RicherAmerican Civil Liberties Union of Arizona v. Richer
We sued elections officials in Arizona to extend the mail ballot “cure” deadline after ballot processing delays threatened to disenfranchise thousands of voters without notice. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
Voting Rights
Civil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights ActCivil Rights Groups Respond to Flawed Trial Court Opinion on New York Voting Rights Act
ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. — On November 7, a New York State Supreme Court trial judge issued an opinion striking down the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act of New York (NYVRA). Today, the Legal Defense Fund, American Civil Liberties Union, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York American Civil Liberties Union, and Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law issued the following statement in response to the ruling: “The NYVRA is unquestionably constitutional, and protects the freedom to vote for all New Yorkers by helping to ensure voters are not subjected to discrimination when participating in the political process. “The Nov. 7 decision by a state trial judge is deeply flawed and plainly incorrect. We fully expect the decision to be reversed on appeal. It flies in the face of basic legal principles and constitutes a stunning overreach in striking down the entire law, including provisions that are not at issue in the case. “To put it simply, the NYVRA does not discriminate, it bans discrimination – and in doing so protects New Yorkers’ most fundamental right. “New York is stronger when everyone has an equal opportunity to vote.”