Photo ID: Religious Objectors

SB280 is an interesting photo identification bill, not because of its purpose (bills have been introduced in the past to require photo ID before voting) but rather because of some of the specific language in the bill.

As I've written elsewhere, I am not sure that Alabama needs a photo ID law for voting purposes. As others have noted, we have no reason to believe that there is a compelling need for such a requirement.

However, even if one agrees with the need for such a law, the bill has some strange language regarding people who have a "genuine religious objection" to being photographed. The strange thing isn't that the bill acknowledges that some people do in fact have a genuine religious exception to being photographed. What is strange is that the bill would have these individuals vote by provisional ballot without providing any procedure for actually counting the ballot.

Election law now states that anyone required to present ID and who cannot do so may cast a provisional ballot. However, for the ballot to be counted, the voter must present ID to the Board of Registrars no later than the Friday after election day. If ID is not presented to the Registrars by the deadline, the ballot will not be counted.

Under current law then, the religious objector will be permitted to vote by provisional ballot but, in the end, the ballot will not count.

The bill ought to provide some meaningful option to the religious objector (an uncounted ballot and the wasted time filling out provisional ballot paperwork are not meaningful), otherwise the language in the bill acknowledging their objection serves no useful purpose.

Voter Lists: Protecting Victims of Domestic Violence

HB333, sponsored by Representatives Jimmy Martin and Cam Ward, has cleared a committee in the Alabama House of Representatives and is awaiting floor action. It provides that neither the Secretary of State nor the county Board of Registrars may release a voter's residential address on a voter list if the voter submits an affidavit stating that he or she is a victim of domestic violence or has custody of a minor who has been a victim of domestic violence.

Overall, it's a good bill. Anyone who has been the victim of domestic violence should not have to compromise her personal safety in order to register to vote. Under current law, she has to do just that. State law requires the Secretary of State to sell a voter's information, including the home address of a voter, to anyone who makes application for the data. It also requires the county Boards of Registrars and the Judges of Probate to release that information to political party organizations. It is fair and just to carve out an exception in the law to protect victims of domestic violence.

While the bill is good, it is not the best bill it can be. As I've written elsewhere, I think all registered voters should have the statutory right to prevent election officials from selling information from their voter registration record.

Even if we agree that only narrow exceptions should be made in the law and the privacy of only well-defined categories of voters should be protected, this bill has a few gaps, gaps which could lead to a false sense of security on the part of voters whom the bill seeks to protect.

The bill addresses only those voter lists released by the Secretary of State and county Boards of Registrars. It does not address lists provided by the county Judges of Probate to political parties. It also does not address municipal polls lists which are public record once compiled by the city or town clerk.

In either of these cases, once the list is released, there is no way to control access to the residential information of particular voters.

This bill should be amended to ensure that the addresses of victims of domestic violence are excluded from lists distributed by any election official.