Brief

As a proud Democracy, American citizens place a high value on the right to vote. It is believed by most that everyone should have an opportunity to equally participate in the decisions made by our government. Recent state actions, however, have put this fundamental concept in jeopardy. There have been several efforts to enforce laws which will require individuals to present valid identification to register to vote or when voting at the polls. In Smith v. Missouri, we are examining the validity of a law which requires individuals to present a birth certificate or passport to register to vote (also known as the “only citizens vote” requirement). Although it is argued that the state needs to protect against problems such as voter fraud, we must also observe the impact these laws may have on the rights of individuals. While striving to secure state interest, it is evident that the opportunity for all citizens to equally participate in elections has been infringed upon. These stringent voting laws have made it difficult for many individuals to meet the requirements to partake in elections by placing physical and financial barriers. Although it may be simple for most Americans to quickly stop by the Department of Motor Vehicles to pick up a photo identification card, there are many individuals for whom this task is daunting. Elderly and disabled citizens, for one, may have a difficult time arranging a ride to complete this errand. Low income individuals may not have the resources to pay the fees required to purchase these identifications. These are just a couple of the burdens which should compel us to further explore the implications of a decision to uphold a law where birth certificates or passports are required documents when registe...

... middle of paper ...

... as consumers indicated that the law was rational. There are substantial examples to demonstrate that the court ensures that rationally related laws are upheld. In both of these cases it is evident that the legislation was protecting against a concrete societal problem. In this case, Smith v. Missouri, the concrete reality of the problem is questionable.

One case with similar implications to Smith v. Missouri is Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. Although the court’s decision upheld a law which requires Indiana citizens to present photo identification when casting votes at the polls, we must look to the arguments presented in Justice Souter’s dissent. The main problem he presents deals with the lack of compelling evidence to support the necessity of this requirement against the threat of voter fraud (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board Souter Dissent).