Nothing is settled on the new Arkansas voter ID law.
A Pulaski County judge recently found the law unconstitutional, but appeals are in the works and a second lawsuit is also in the wings.
The controversial law was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and vetoed by the state's Democratic governor last year. Lawmakers overrode the governor's veto, however, and the law was to be applied statewide for the first time in the upcoming primary elections.
That was, of course, until last week's ruling by Circuit Judge Tim Fox. He found fault with an absentee ballot requirement and axed the law as violating Arkansas' Constitution.
In the days since, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel announced plans to appeal the decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court. His office and the state Republican Party have also asked for a stay of Fox's ruling. And Secretary of State Mark Martin's office has asked Fox to recuse from hearing the second lawsuit against the voter ID law.
The other lawsuit is scheduled for a hearing Friday before Fox. Unlike the case on which Fox has already ruled, which challenged an element of the law, the second lawsuit attacks it as a whole.
The voter ID law became effective Jan. 1, requiring voters to show photo identification to election officials whether voting early or at the polls. It has been applied in local elections but not yet in a statewide vote.
If this sounds like something you're already doing, it is because Arkansas voters have long been asked for photo ID when voting. They could show a driver's license or other ID voluntarily but were not required to do so to cast a ballot.
The stricter voter ID law here, like others elsewhere, is generally promoted by Republicans as a way to reduce voter fraud and opposed by Democrats who declare it a means to disenfranchise voters. Many states have imposed strict ID laws.
Under the new Arkansas law, voters who don't show the required ID may cast provisional ballots, but they will not count if the voter can't show ID to election officials within an allowed time frame after the vote or sign an affidavit stating they are indigent or have religious objection to being photographed.
Obviously, the new law could disenfranchise people who can't jump through the hoops created by it.
Here's the real problem: Precious few people vote now. No barriers should impede those who do.
There are other ways to keep people who aren't eligible to vote from casting ballots and to strike the votes of any who might slip through the cracks.
Few apparently do.
There simply has been no demonstrated voter fraud, as Gov. Mike Beebe said in his veto message.
He said the citizens who have the most difficulty voting in the first place -- the elderly and the poor, including many minorities -- could have their voting rights impaired.
That's pretty obvious. The benefit supposedly inures to Republicans since the most affected groups are more often aligned with Democrats.
Nonetheless, the question for the courts isn't whether this is good or bad policy. The question is whether the law is constitutional.
Fox said it is not.
Last week's decision came in a case brought by the Pulaski County Election Commission against the state Board of Election Commissioners. The county commission challenged a rule that gave absentee voters additional time to show proof of ID.
The other case, which will presumably be decided then appealed to the Supreme Court as well, comes from the American Civil Liberties Union.
So the debate is hardly over. The law may or may not be applied in the May 20 primary, depending on whether there is a stay to allow it.
In the meantime, that policy question is still before the electorate.
Arkansans will be voting on May 20 for legislative candidates and state officials in those primary elections and again in November in the general election.
And both Republican and Democratic candidates are raising the issue to attract votes for their respective sides.
Commentary on 04/30/2014