The Christian Century, in its “Century Marks” column, ran this piece from the Associated Press:
Suspect nuns: About 12 nuns were turned away from the election polls in South Bend, Indiana, on May 6 because they don’t have state or federal identification bearing a photograph. The nuns, in their 80s and 90s, had been told earlier that they would not be able to vote without such an ID, but they came anyway. Indiana’s photo ID law is the strictest in the country. It was challenged by the state’s division of the American Civil Liberties Union, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law in a decision issued shortly before Indiana’s presidential primary.
This was no doubt expected to provoke a response against the law: “how dare Indiana treat elderly nuns as potential voter frauds!” My response, however is a bit different: why didn’t these nuns get the necessary IDs when they knew they would be required? The IDs that Indiana makes available for people who don’t have a driver’s license cost a little bit of nothing (the argument that they were some kind of conspiracy against the poor is nonsensical when one considers how often a photo ID is necessary in this society–providing them as cheaply as Indiana does is actually a service to the poor). I can’t help but think that these nuns, elderly or not, were making some kind of political statement. They could have made a better one, about responsible citizenship by Christians in a democracy, by getting the ID and voting.
May 19, 2008 at 11:14 am
Amen!
May 19, 2008 at 12:12 pm
As I understand it from a recent radio discussion I heard on the subject, the State of Indiana will actually send someone out to the home of a person unable to come in to make the necessary application for the voter ID (given sufficient notice, of course). This is very clearly a political statement. Nuns have taken a liking to doing that sort of things in recent years, thinking that their special station in life exempts them from the routine responsibilities of civil law.
May 19, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I disagree. I think any obstacle to voting, such as having to pay for a photo-id, is a de-facto “poll tax”. Since we are not required to have a government-issued ID, there should be no requirement for one for voting purposes. We either need to have a national ID (which I oppose), or continue using the system we have for voting identification.
May 19, 2008 at 5:13 pm
David: What you are saying, in essence, is that states have no power to determine who may or may not vote in any particular jurisdiction. The photo ID (which can hardly be compared to poll taxes, which had only one purpose–to facilitate disenfranchisement on the basis of race) is a perfectly reasonable provision to ensure that a person is who he or she says he or she is. Why is it that liberals and Democrats are so determined to undermine this fundamental ability of the states?
May 19, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Because we have such a horrible history when it comes to voter disenfranchisement. It is also the difference between a right and privilege. Under our constitution, citizens have the right to vote provided they are citizens, over the age of 18, and have not committed a felony. Extra-constitutional requirements, such as photo ID, infringe upon this very basic democratic principle.
As I said in my previous post, this problem arises because we don’t have a national ID. If we had a government-issued national ID there would be no issue here. But, due to quite valid privacy concerns, we have instead relied upon our state DMV-issued licenses/IDs to act as a de-facto national ID. Given that there is a cost required for these cards (not paid by the government), you are essentially creating an obstacle, and a cost, to vote. This is unconstitutional and violates the basic precepts of democracy — that our votes are equal regardless of our economic standing or any other criteria.
May 19, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Indiana has a history of voter disenfranchisement? Who knew? The point is that the past can certainly instruct the present, but there is no reason why is has to dictate every detail of what is done in the present. And what makes photo ID (which is just a means to the end of showing that you are actually the person who is registered to vote in a given jurisdiction) “extra-constitutional”? Your logic seems to suggest that even voter registration, since it isn’t specified in the Constitution, is illegitimate.
Your other argument simply isn’t correct, as it turns out. In this instance, there isn’t any cost (I was wrong in writing that the state-issued photo ID “cost a little bit of nothing”–it is actually free). So much for that problem.
May 19, 2008 at 11:51 pm
David and Pastor Fischler,
I sort of agree with parts of what you each say. In this case, I think that the state can have some sort of ID requirement IF they allow (like we do in Virgina) a voter to sign an affidavit certifying that they are who they say they are. This allows for “security” (very few people will actually swear to a legal document falsely and those folks would have gotten the fake ID anyway).
Unfortunately, Indiana does not do that. (And the recent US Supreme court decision says that they are allowed to require an ID. Since I am not on the USSC, I can’t do anything about that,)
Now as to the situation directly mentioned, a proper nun should have renounced all worldy possessions which includes an ID. I would back up the sisters right not to have an ID. (Unless they are going to drive, of course.) The concept of “the religious” is something which I realize that is not part of the Presbyterian Way. (In fact, Pastor Fischler, when I was being examined for Deacon at Faith, I took exception to that passage in the WCF which denounces vows of chastity.)
So, ID for voting, yes-with a non-id backup if possible. ID for sisters, monks or even priests, nope. I still see these folks as “other worldly.” Now having said all that, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VOTING, they should be in their cloister. These must be “active sisters” rather than nuns. You see, there is a difference. Nuns are cloistered and not out “doing stuff.” The sisters who teach in the schools, work in hospitals etc, are “SISTERS” of which a Nun is a type. So all nuns are sisters but not all sisters are nuns.
Examples of Sisters are the Domincans who will be teaching at the new John Paul the Great High School in Prince William county starting in the fall. An example of a nun are the poor clares who live in Aleandria but NEVER GO OUT!! They stay behind the screen praying and doing other “inside work.”
May 20, 2008 at 9:10 am
Chip, I’m in Wisconsin and we’ve been going around and around on the voter ID issue for a few years (we’ve had documented cases of voter fraud in the last few election cycles), with all the same disenfranchisement arguments that have been floating around. Early on, our legislators made a provision to provide a **FREE** ID for those who could not afford it or otherwise would provide a hardship. So that proverbial ‘poll tax’ has been removed. But yet the opponents are screaming disenfranchisement (although the people who would most likely be disenfranchised are felons, those who vote multiple times and dead people), so our voter ID is still not a reality.
In our state, there are many things that we need to present a photo ID for, including obtaining a library card and purchasing certain cold and sinus medicines. These two items aren’t extreme examples for the need for ID.
What has been happening in Indiana has been watched by those of us in WI who want Voter ID … in the last election only a small number of people were disenfranchised, not the ‘thousands’ of people that was bemoaned.