In a rather remarkable turn of events, Judge Harold Murphy upheld Georgia’s voter photo identification requirement. After having twice enjoined the law, the Rome federal district judge was the preferred pick of photo identification opponents for yet another judicial block to enforcement of the law. Indeed, as the Secretary of State and the State Election Board pushed forward toward enforcement of the law, the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the case boldly stated, “bring it on.” Well, the State did, and now the Georgia case will join a multitude of other cases around the country to uphold the constitutionality and validity of photo identification as one way to combat in person voter fraud.
Many Georgians might ask what has changed between the time that Georgia’s photo identification requirement was adopted and now. Cynics will undoubtedly respond – not much. Yet, there have been two significant changes between Judge Murphy’s original injunctions against the enforcement of Georgia’s photo identification requirement and his order now upholding its constitutionality.
Most significantly, Georgia has a different Secretary of State. In 2006, Georgians elected Karen Handel to replace Cathy Cox. The weight of the office of Secretary of State is no small thing in creating the dynamics to sustain the will of the Legislature and the Governor, and, in this case, the will of the people of Georgia. Georgia voters have consistently favored the photo identification requirement by about an 80% margin.
Although sworn to uphold the laws duly passed and enacted by the State of Georgia, former Secretary of State Cathy Cox made no secret of her opposition to Georgia’s photo identification requirement. In addition to her written opposition to the requirement (which became exhibits for the plaintiffs against the state), she made clear in her testimony as a constitutional officer of Georgia her belief that the law was unsustainable. Indeed, she was the lead witness for the plaintiffs and was cited often in the opposition to the requirement.
Equally significantly, former Secretary of State Cathy Cox withheld the resources necessary to support and implement the law. Eventually, her stubborn resistance led the Legislature to transfer responsibility for the necessary education to support the measure from the Office of the Secretary of State to the State Election Board in a specific provision in the amended law. In the end, former Secretary of State Cox’s opposition would reach the point where she released an inaccurate and misleading report regarding the number of registered Georgia voters without a driver’s license or DDS identification card. Interestingly, a news story based on her inaccurate and misleading report immediately appeared on her gubernatorial campaign website (“Cox: Lack of photo ID may cause ‘pandemonium’”). The court’s order is very pointed and none too kind regarding the former Secretary’s data, especially in contrast to the availability of reliable accurate data.
In stark contrast to this sustained effort by the former Secretary of State to undermine a duly passed and enacted Georgia law, Secretary of State Karen Handel stood up for the law and committed the resources necessary to enforce and implement Georgia’s photo identification requirement. Certainly, the shift in the testimony of Georgia’s chief election officer from obvious opposition to unwavering support is noteworthy. Yet, it is Secretary Handel’s record backing up her testimony that is important. She made clear that she would both enforce the law and educate voters to minimize any impact on Georgia voters. She backed it up with the commitment of resources from the Office of the Secretary of State to make that commitment meaningful.
In addition to this fundamental change in the commitment to supporting and enforcing the law, the judicial landscape took shape. Instead of the vacuum of court precedent that existed when photo identification requirements were just beginning, there now exists a pattern of judicial opinions across the nation recognizing the constitutionality and enforceability of photo identification requirements. Decisions from the United States Supreme Court, federal appeals courts, and various state supreme courts cleared the way for the enforceability of Georgia’s law, once adequately supported and implemented.
Basically, it was the combination of both a Secretary of State fulfilling her constitutional obligation to support and defend Georgia law, and the pattern of court opinions rejecting similar constitutional challenges, that made the difference and that was just too much for the court to ignore.