The Renewed Battle for States’ Rights

Historically, South Carolina seldom misses a chance to rebel against federal intrusion. From the Tariff of 1828, to the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln to the 1948 states’ rights showdown with the Truman administration that formed the Dixiecrats, South Carolina has a collective, engrained sense of obdurateness that has done much to characterize the state. This week, as Republican candidates vie for the nomination of their party, the state has passed a law requiring the showing of photo identification prior to voting. To most states and many countries around the world, this might not seem strange or unusual, but in the United States and to the Justice Department, this is a malevolent attempt to keep minorities from voting.

Critics of such legislation have suggested that the cry for states’ rights is code for racism and that the law demanding photo identification will unfairly impact minority groups. First, no one linked race with respect to the identification card, code or otherwise, until the law’s opponents and the Obama administration did. Second, their assertion that only minorities will be impacted smacks of real racism. Why would minorities be adversely affected more than anyone else? They claim the cost of photo identification is prohibitive but if that is the case, would not any poor person, minority or otherwise, be equally affected? So, are we talking about race or economics? According to the state’s Department of Motor Vehicle’s website, the cost of a simple photo identification card in South Carolina is $5. Would not many declare the assertion that minorities could not afford $5 as racist? As seen in many political scenarios, the quickest way to shut down a conversation is to throw race into the debate.

What if the government paid for the identification card? Would opponents to the law and the Justice Department acquiesce? Given the level of vociferous condemnation, it seems unlikely. Therefore, what is the argument about? Regardless of their true intent, I’m not sure how much traction the Justice Department and opponents to the law can garner. Most Americans do not see an issue with asking for a photo identification to vote. Considering that countries ranging from the most dysfunctional electoral processes to the most advanced democracies use identification cards, there seems little that opponents can legitimately say without seeming capricious and irrational.

I’ve always thought that claims that certain laws adversely impact only minorities were a bit racist on their accord. This seems blatantly so. What about the idea of pulling together $5 over seven months is inherently prejudicial towards minorities? What about the process of getting said card beyond the money is particularly injurious towards minorities? It would seem that people should be more offended by the attack on the law than the law itself. This is not a question of policy; it is a question of race politics. It diminishes those who engage in it and the real examples of racism.