I clipped this out
of Mark Udall’s recent newsletter -- Paul Tiger
And, Yet, Even More Immigration Politics
Having taken an oath to uphold the constitution, I have a solemn
responsibility to vote against even the most politically popular proposals when
there are serious doubts about the constitutionality of the legislation.
H.R. 4844, the "Federal Election Integrity Act,"
transparently brought to the floor of the House to help the Republican majority
whip up public emotions on the eve of a tough election, poses serious
constitutional problems. In short, I think it violates the 24th
Amendment.
That amendment, added to the Constitution in 1964, says that the rights of
Americans to vote in federal elections "shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or
other tax" and that Congress "shall have the power to enforce"
that part of the Constitution.
But instead of enforcing that Constitutional bar on making voting a taxable
event, this bill would require states to choose between making some people pay
to vote and paying to provide them with the identification that the bill says
will be required if they want to exercise that right.
The bill's supporters say the bill is constitutional because it says that
states cannot make everyone pay for identification -- they have to provide it
free to people who cannot afford the "reasonable cost" of providing
it.
But the 24th Amendment is not ambiguous on whether it is permissible to make
some people pay to vote, so long as they can afford it. Instead, it makes
clear that no Americans -- regardless of their income -- can be forced to pay
any tax in order to vote.
Some argue that paying for a government-issued ID is not a tax, but a
"user fee." I am not persuaded -- and I would remind them of the
words of Richard Darman, OMB Director under President Reagan, who said that
"if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like duck, it is
a duck, [and] euphemisms like user fees will not fool the public."
Local governments oppose the bill because it would impose a burdensome unfunded
mandate. If the Republican leadership had been willing to allow the House
to consider amendments, changes could have been made to remove any doubts about
its constitutionality and to avoid burdening the state and local governments
with unnecessary burdens. However, instead the leadership insisted on
bringing the bill to the floor under a procedure that prevented that -- one of
the reasons that many have questioned whether the real purpose of the bill is
less to respond to potential election fraud and more to make it harder for some
citizens to vote.
I am not opposed to a carefully constructed and constitutional bill that would
enhance workplace identity, which is why I support H.R. 98. Nor am I
opposed to legislating in order to ensure that non-citizens and others
ineligible to vote are prevented from voting fraudulently. And I am
hopeful that once the heat of this election season passes, the House will return
to a more deliberative and bipartisan way of doing business on this issue and
others.