Equal and Opposite

Dear Sammy,

Your great post on the voter fraud fraud reminds me of one of the fundamental laws of our political press: every problem has an equal and opposite problem.

Thus, the problem of voter suppression is balanced by the equal and opposite problem of voter fraud. The problems caused by a lack of health care are balanced by the equal and opposite problem of moral hazard. The harm to our environment is balanced by the equal and opposite problem of harm to the economy.

Now, someone could look into whether voter fraud happens more often than voter suppression (of course it doesn't), or whether moral hazard even exists (it only seems to show up when the proposed programs help the poor, doesn't it?), or whether the claims of drastic harm to the economy are based on anything beyond speculation (not really, no). But that would violate the utmost duty of the press: to remain neutral, apolitical, and unbiased. A definitive answer to these questions would discredit one of the participants, and thus seeking the truth becomes a partisan affair.

Instead, we are left with mere preferences -- your weighing of the abstract sin of voter fraud against the abstract sin of voter suppression, your beliefs about helping people versus your beliefs about the motives and actions of the underclass, your feelings about the environment against your feelings about the economy.

And preferences, unlike facts, are never wrong.

License and Registration, Please

All's been quiet on the legal front, with much of the country's attention focused on the never-ending Democratic primaries.

But that's all about to change. The Supreme Court's term is slowly winding down, and we legal junkies know what that means. Controversial decisions! Big issues! Mind-boggling turns of events!

With yesterday's decision in the Indiana voter ID fraud case (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board), the Court does not disappoint. By a 6-3 vote, the Court upheld a state statute that required citizens voting at the polling places to present a government-issued photo ID.

Now, this law definitely passes the Mom test -- my 58-year-old working-class mother thinks states are perfectly within their rights to ask for ID before allowing people to vote. Because, after all, doesn't everyone already have an ID anyway?

The problem with this argument: there are a whole bunch of people who fall below the radar screen of me and my mom -- poor people, elderly people, people who don't drive -- that still have the right to vote. The Indiana law imposes a burden on these people to go out and get a photo ID that otherwise they would not need.

The Court's task is to balance that burden against the harm of potential voter fraud. If the law imposes too great a burden on an American's right to vote, it's unconstitutional. Conversely, if the law doesn't prevent any real harm, it's also unconstitutional.

The Court failed on both counts in its decision. Many other bloggers have astutely commented on the thin evidence of voter fraud in Indiana. In the main opinion, Justice Stevens relies on one instance of absentee voter fraud (not the in-person voter fraud that the Indiana statute addresses) and one Boss Tweed anecdote to justify the prevention of the supposed voter fraud in Indiana. In fact, there is no evidence that voters are stampeding the polls, pretending to be people that they are not.

The Court should have struck down the law on that ground alone; with no harm to prevent, then there's no reason for the state to impose any burden on the right to vote.

And the burden the law does impose is far from minor. As anyone who has obtained a driver's license knows, the litany of necessary documents can be confusing. Indigent and elderly individuals likely don't have birth certificates, or passports, or social security cards readily available. They also often don't have easy access to transportation to the government offices that distribute the IDs. And it takes someone with a serious commitment to democracy to stand in the DMV lines for hours on end, simply to get a photo ID that will allow them to vote once a year.

The Court's analysis simply does not hold water, and it has opened a door for partisan politicians to place further burdens on the right to vote. In a democracy with such a low participation rate, our governments should be making it easier -- not harder -- for us to get to the polls. But Crawford gives legal credence to the idea that big burdens can be imposed, even for phantom problems with the voting process.

Not Into the Torture Discussion?

Then how about some nipple rings?

William Saletan believes that since extraneous metal pieces are voluntary, then those of us with said rings (be they nose, nipple, or bellybutton) have implicitly agreed to invasive procedures at airport security lines.

First off, it's unclear to me why a nipple ring would set off a metal detector. Women wear earrings through the security line, no problem. Wedding rings, ditto. But let's move on to the bigger question ...

Why does consent to a piercing equal consent to increased security procedures? Saletan points to a distinction between pacemakers (necessary) and nipple rings (unnecessary). OK. But earrings are also unnecessary, and if the reason for the removal of the nipple ring is the safety of other passengers (as Saletan suggests), then ladies, it's time to leave those diamond studs in the luggage.

Saletan sounds like a bitter old man, decrying "those kids" and their choices to get tattoos and listen to rock music and pierce their nipples. But when we're talking about airport security, whether an adornment is "necessary" is irrelevant. It's whether the piercing poses a security risk.

Nipple rings are no more dangerous than other kinds of jewelry we allow into the cabin. Passengers should not be forced to remove them -- a painful and embarassing process -- before they'll be allowed onboard.

Torture ...

I can't believe we're having this conversation again.

There should be one simple rule here: Jack Bauer can torture. The rest of us cannot.