Martin to obey voter-ID ruling

But still favors law, he says

One day after vowing to “defend the voter ID law put in place by the Legislature to the fullest extent possible,” Secretary of State Mark Martin’s office said it will abide by the Supreme Court ruling that strikes down that law.

Martin announced in a news release that “voters are no longer required to provide ‘proof of identity’ (photo ID) in order to vote in person in the General Election. The law reverts back to the previous statute that existed prior to Act 595.” On Election Day, “poll workers are still required by law to ask for identification; however, voters are not required to provide identification in order to vote,” the statement said.

Early voti ng begins Monday. Election Day is Nov. 4.

A spokesman for Martin said the off ice’s attorneys are evaluating Wednesday’s ruling by the Supreme Court that found

that Act 595 violates the state constitution by adding a voter qualification — the showing of photo IDs — to the long-established qualifications set in the constitution.

In a separate statement Thursday night, Martin said he would work with legislators and others to find an “appropriate” remedy in the wake of the court’s unanimous ruling, whether that be by an act of the Legislature or by a ballot initiative.

A spokesman said Martin’s office also is considering legal action.

“This is an issue that is near and dear to the voters’ hearts and near and dear to the integrity of the election process,” Martin said. “I will not rest until we provide a remedy for voters.”

Critics say it would take a constitutional amendment for Martin to restore a law that is unconstitutional.

Martin’s promise to defend an unconstitutional law struck some Arkansas officials as odd.

Matt DeCample, spokesman for Gov. Mike Beebe, said the justices’ ruling against the law, which went into effect at the start of the year, is pretty clear

Wednesday’s ruling “was the legal remedy for the case, it was asking the Supreme Court. That’s been decided and in a pretty resounding way. We consider the matter done and resolved,” DeCample said. “It’s cut and dry [to the governor], and to the other attorneys in the governor’s office … and everyone in the legal community we speak to.”

When asked what Beebe thought about the possibility of another attempt to enact a voter-identification law, either by the Legislature or through a ballot proposal, DeCample said it was hard to predict what would happen.

“All we know is the law as it was written is clearly unconstitutional. Beyond that, we can’t guess what any new bill would look like next year,” DeCample said. “Court after court has shown that these laws don’t have much effect beyond disenfranchising voters. What will happen after Gov. Beebe is gone is anyone’s guess.”

Rita Sklar, the head of the state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which helped challenge the now defunct law, has said she doubts there will be enough legislators willing to amend the constitution to require voter identification in the future.

Early on, Beebe had warned that the voter-identification legislation was unconstitutional, and he vetoed it in March 2013. Legislators overrode his veto, and the law was in effect during the May primaries this year. More than 1,000 ballots — most of them cast by absentee voters — were tossed out because of the new law.

In May, a circuit judge found the law unconstitutional but stayed his decision until the Supreme Court could hear the case.

Despite arguments that the circuit judge had overstepped and that the new law was merely a mechanism to verify voter registration, the Supreme Court found that it violated Article 3, Section 1 of the state constitution, which says that in order to cast ballots, voters must be older than age 18, U.S. citizens, Arkansas residents and properly registered.

An elections official in Martin’s office, Rob Hammons, sent an email to county clerks and election commissioners across the state notifying them of the court’s opinion and telling them that “only first time voters” would be required to show identification.

But after the legality of Hammons’ directive was questioned, Martin spokesman Laura Labay clarified those instructions.

First-time voters who registered through the mail and have not provided identification — ranging from copies of driver’s licenses to utility bills — will have to show some identification at the polls.

Labay, and others, said that standard was in effect in 2012 and is merely an extension of the voter verification process.

Aaron Sadler, a spokesman for Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, sent out a statement Thursday reiterating that the voter-identification law is no longer in effect and will not apply in next month’s general election.

“There are now no circumstances which absolutely require a photo ID in order to vote,” Sadler stated. “Some first time voters will need to provide some type of identification, but there are alternatives to providing a photo ID.”

Opponents of the voter-identification law expressed surprise that the secretary of state would pledge to defend a law that has been struck down.

Holly Dickson, an attorney with the Arkansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and who helped challenge the voter-identification law, said she couldn’t fathom another legal challenge prevailing in regard to that law.

The decision striking down the law was based on provisions in the state constitution — not the federal constitution, she noted, making it less likely that federal courts would intervene.

“The Arkansas Supreme Court’s job is to interpret and apply the Arkansas Constitution. They are the authority on the state constitution, and they’ve spoken,” Dickson said. “I really don’t see an avenue to appeal this in federal court.”

Chris Burks, a Democrat on the Pulaski County Election Commission, took exception to Martin’s continued support of the law.

“I think it’s the height of irresponsibility to suggest that there’s further litigation to come,” Burks said. “There’s an Arkansas state law, it is passed by the state Legislature, that was challenged under the Arkansas Constitution, the Arkansas Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Arkansas Constitution.”

Burks said he realizes that it is campaign season and Martin is running for office, but Martin’s statement unnecessarily clouds reality.

“People get excited in campaign season … but this is nonpartisan. It’s the law. The Supreme Court said so,” Burks said. “There is no basis in law or fact, it’s pure politics.”

Justin Clay, director of the state Board of Election Commissioners, said his office is working with Martin’s office to address how the ruling will affect workers and voters at the polls.

Martin