Without throwing knives at me, or at each other, please explain what’s wrong with voter ID laws.
I would prefer to be asked than to let just anyone come in and tell the poll worker she’s me.
I am generally a social liberal and all for equal treatment of all people, but I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Why is this considered racist? Don’t the vast majority of Americans have a state-issued photo ID so they can cash checks, buy boozahol, or otherwise verify who they are? If not, are there really some who can’t get to the DMV or local authority to get an ID card, but who can still make it to the polls? What am I missing here?
Honestly, if a state issued photo ID was required to vote and the state would issue free IDs for those people who can’t afford them, I don’t see a problem. Driving isn’t a right, I pay for the privilege to drive. If they make displaying a state ID a condition of exercising the right to vote then make those IDs free to those people who didn’t already pay for a drivers license.
Do the math. How often does it actually happen that someone impersonates a voter? Now figure in the amount of effort to ask every voter for identification. Now calculate (or at least speculate) how many false positives this generates, i.e. people are legal voters but have forgotten their ID, or let their ID expire, or have something wrong (in the highly variable opinions of election workers, who we know never make mistakes) with their IDs, or have the same name (or a similar name) as someone on a “suspect” list (such lists being compiled by government workers, who we know never make mistakes).
So after doing the math, decide which is more significant: failing to block someone from illegally voting (a false negative), or blocking someone from legally voting (a flase positive). By any reasonable numbers, the first is of trivial concern, the second is far more troubling.
For actual real-world election fraud, I’d be looking at the people who compile the votes, rather than who is casting them.
ok, so you feel it’s unneccessary. But is it wrong? or unethical? why? goodness sake, don’t forget your ID.
The people who support it say that it’s important as a way to stop people who shouldn’t be voting (people voting twice, illegal immigrants, people not registered) from voting. Opponents say that it will keep poor people who might not have or can’t afford a picture ID, from voting. That’s really what it comes down to, I think.
In certain circumstances it can be wrong and/or unethical. Does the ID cost money? Are the requirements for obtaining an ID onerous?
For example: South Carolina had a voter ID law shot down by the Justice Dept. last year because the law as written, in the opinion of the the Justice Dept., would have placed too heavy a burden on the poor and on blacks, making it difficult for many of them to exercise their right to vote. The Justice Dept. monitors SC’s voting laws and implementation closely because the state has a history of disenfranchisement.
We discussed this for a few pages before the discussion itself became onerous.
thanks. Was searching for it but didn’t find it. I knew someone must have brought it up.
Well, it’ll be expensive, address a nonexistent problem, and will create a nuisance for law-abiding citizens. Long before we get to the ethics of it, it’s a bad idea and should be dismissed on purely rational grounds.
But since some people are still pushing for it, despite its uselessness, it’s fair to delve into their motives. At the very mildest, I can see a politician promoting this as an effort to convince voters that:
A. An actual problem exists.
B. He’s doing (or planning to do if elected) something about it.
Beyond that, the only motives that come to mind are darker - an effort to throw up barriers to unfriendly voters, for example. It would be unethical of me not to call them on it.
I’m a liberal, so my position is basically boilerplate liberalism. But voter ID laws are designed and promoted by conservative groups to engage in voter suppression against groups that do not support conservatives.
Young people tend to prefer democrats (about 2-1) over the GOP. Blacks prefer democrats nearly 9-1. Latinos about 2/3-1. Poor people about 2-1. The disabled about 2-1.
All of those groups are also less likely to have a state issued ID. So you make it harder for them to vote, and you can throw an election. Its no different than if democrats found a technicality to make it harder for diehard christians and gun owners to vote.
ALEC, a pro-business group is one of the big pushers for voter ID laws. Why would a business group support voter ID laws? For the reason above, to throw close elections so the more business friendly candidate will win. This is the same reason several states that were taken over by the GOP are making it harder to vote in other ways by reducing/eliminating early voting, or making absentee voting harder, etc.
It may not be a ‘sexy’ answer, but people who don’t have ID to a degree are not going to go through the trouble of getting one. They may just stay home and not vote. This could throw a close election.
Plus getting an ID may require getting a birth certificate and paying a fee, so it could still be a hassle to some people. Not everyone, but just enough to affect close elections.
Because the right to vote is in the Constitution, and requiring people to pay for that right is unconstitutional.
About 99% of the time in present-day America, debates like the one OP mentions which appear to involve logic or rights, are actually purely about politics.
It is a simple fact that restrictions on voting significantly reduce the turnout of Democrat voters, that similar obstacles (e.g. underequipped precincts in Ohio) likely did affect the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election and are likely to affect future elections. To pretend the debate is about what is “fair” or “logical” is to show huge ignorance of present-day American politics.
I will now volunteer to be pilloried. Since I believe voting by Americans who get their opinions from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck is a major problem, I personally would cheerfully support voting restrictions if the effect would be better electoral outcomes.
If they created a “voter ID card” that was given to every registered voter, I would have a lot less of a problem with the requirement. As it stands now, though, it’s really a backdoor poll tax.
Note that a lot of states have cut their DMV budgets, increasing the hassle to get an ID. I don’t consider that a coincidence.
In the Ohio primary, an elderly veteran was denied the right to vote because he didn’t have the right kind of ID. He’d allowed his DL to lapse because he can’t drive anymore, tried to use his VA ID card, and they wouldn’t accept it.
And by following the last link in the story that gatorslap showed us, we find that a 96 year old woman was denied a voter ID card in Tennessee… because she didn’t have an original copy of her marriage license.
These voter ID laws don’t prevent voter fraud as much as they prevent voting.
The right to vote outweighs the government’s right to identify you.
Voter ID laws make it more difficult for poor and minority individuals to cast their votes; these people overwhelmingly vote Democrat, giving an unfair advantage to the GOP. That, quite frankly, is THE reason why conservatives are pushing this nonsense.
It’s incredibly disgusting when you really think about it. I’m honestly surprised that the Obama administration hasn’t gotten more involved in this issue in order to stop it. I mean, there might not be much that the fed can even do in this situation, but seriously, it can do something, right?
In Toronto you can vote with a piece of mail from the government (a vote ticket thingy) and a bank statement.
Why cant the states do something similar?
Actually, they’ve been doing it that way forever – you get your little postcard that tells you what ward and polling place you’re supposed to go to, you show up there, they check that your name’s on the rolls, you vote. It’s a relatively recent development in the States to pass laws requiring some “official” ID issued by some other agency(*) and that not everyone holds in order to vote, under a pretext that there is some high incidence of voter fraud, and it’s widely believed to be a vote-suppression strategy.
(*Remember, Americans are NOT issued a universal identity document or social services elegibility card, and woe be it to any American politician who dared propose such a thing.)
The amazing thing is that no state seems willing to adopt the simple method of having your voter registration itself be a picture card that is issued at the point of registration, 100% free of charge, as we do.
Yeah, this country is so gawddamn backwards in so many ways it’s staggering. This latest issue just further reinforces that.
IIRC: California used to have this and I think it is the best solution.
They since got rid of it. Three guesses as to what state I was living in when I went to vote and found out someone had used my name.
I would like to answer the OP’s questions by posting a letter to the editor I sent to our local newspaper. I was responding to a city council member who had written a letter to the paper saying things similar to the OP. However, since I know the letter-writer, I know him to be an arch conservative. The OP says that she is socially liberal.
To fill in the setting, I live in a rural county of about 6000 people. However, we are in the densely-populated part of Texas. A city of over 500,000 people is about an hour away. Two cities of over a million people each are about ninety minutes away. We’re a small county, but we’re hardly out in the sticks.
And a further personal anecdote, I am in the process of getting my 16-year-old son’s first driver’s license. The State of Texas has made this process a giant pain in the ass. This is not an accident.