This is not America being different for the sake of being different. As a country, we have an almost reflexive aversion to “show me your papers” type laws. Our conservatives seem to have gotten over it, though.
A law mandating the issue of ID cards doesn’t necessarily have to come with another law requiring you to carry them at all times, you know. You can have the former without the latter.
I thought you were referring to voting rights rather than issuing ID cards.
A good portion of Americans still don’t like the concept of universal Federal ID. Several are still against Social Security cards for that reason.
A relatively small number of disenfranchised Texans fall into this camp. They don’t like any IDs (even state-issued IDs) and want to live off the grid as much as possible. Some have chosen to get an ID simply to vote. Others have chosen to give up their franchise. Few of them are happy about it. Many don’t even have driver’s licenses (though many still drive).
These are fairly extreme outliers, but Americans generally don’t like mandated IDs, even if they (usually) accept the necessity in many cases.
They’re not dumb enough to pass a blatantly racist law. They come up with more subtle ways to discriminate. Bricker mentioned the Indiana law, so let’s take a look at that. When Mitch Daniels was elected, practically the first two things he did were 1) pass a voter-ID law; and 2) close a whole bunch (27, IIRC) of BMV branches. The most blatant closing was the only license branch in Gary, Indiana, a very poor, minority city. The branch issued 65,000 licenses the year prior to its closing. Many of the residents of Gary did not have cars, and after the closing of the branch they had no way to get to a BMV branch. (If I remember correctly, the city of Gary was finally allowed to open their own BMV branch, although the city had to pay for it and it offered very limited services.)
I remember it very well, the closings didn’t save that much money and caused massive hardships for many people. But Mitch wouldn’t even discuss it. He just closed the branches and that was that. It was really bizarre, and the only way it made any sense was if you realized that it was a voter-suppression scheme.
In addition, in some countries, there’s a lot more at stake for the voters, or the voters feel that there’s a lot more at stake. This is particularly true of newer democracies.
Cite? IMHO, voter ID laws have everything to do with turnout, on both sides of the aisle.
I see your Indiana with North Carolina. In NC, it’s definitely not a coincidence.
Bingo. Far more important to get this right than things like consumer protections.
Why else would the R’s be for it and D’s be against it, so adamantly? There is no evidence of significant voter fraud. There’s no evidence of a problem that needs to be solved here.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a sizable segment that doesn’t trust the government enough to get an ID. You may claim that’s their problem, and I wouldn’t disagree with you, but the Democratic Party would because you’d be undermining their voter base. As I said, this is about politics, on both sides of the question.
Part of the problem is the two-fisted approach, such as used here in NC, which not only imposes voter ID requirements, but also makes absentee ballots more restrictive.
Driving isn’t a right, it’s a privilege. The rural poor who get disenfranchised by voter ID laws don’t drive. (Either that or they’re driving illegally, which I won’t try to defend.)
It’s not the necessity you think it is. Many of the rural poor don’t drive, often depending on someone else in the household who does. You can drive for two, but you can’t vote for two. But more importantly, driving is a privilege. (If driving had existed at the time of the founding fathers, I bet it would be a right!) Voting is not a privilege. Driving is controlled by each state. Voting is handled by the state, but the right to vote is Constitutional.
OK, but why? What problem are you trying to solve?
See above: absentee or vote-in ballots, which are being restricted here in NC by the Republicans. What’s their reason for that? I’ll give you three guesses, but the first two don’t count. I’ll give you a clue: it’s the same reason as for redistricting. (Note: the R’s aren’t the only players in that game.)
OK, show us any evidence of the 10 fraudulent voters and perhaps we’ll play along.
Is there any evidence of voter fraud?
What was the turnout change between elections before and after? I can answer that, at least for Indiana:
In 2002 (NonPres), voter turnout was 38%.
In 2004 (Pres), voter turnout was 58%.
In 2006 (NonPres), voter turnout was 40%.
In 2008 (Pres), voter turnout was 62%.
In 2010 (Non Pres), voter turnout was 41%.
In 2012 (Pres), voter turnout was 58%.
I’m not seeing a trend of the disaffected, here.
[/quote]
These stats aren’t sufficient to show what you’re asking us to look for.
That might work, but won’t be proposed by the Republicans since it wouldn’t achieve their aim of affecting Democrat turnout as much as requiring IDs. It won’t be proposed by the Democrats either, since it won’t increase their voter turnout (except possibly as an alternative to voter ID laws.)
Which, after much protest, was reopened in December 2005 as a full, state-run BMV branch. The only services it doesn’t have is driver skills testing.
So, while I agree that it was a short-sighted and dumb idea to “Save money”, the “only way it made sense” was short circuited and remains so to this day. And this was part of a larger plan in Indiana to process routine services by mail (which, as shown by other states, is generally revenue-neutral, but cuts down on long waits at a government office for people), so it wasn’t done in a vacuum.
Now, this was one of 27 closings. To see if these were trying to push minority/poor out of the voting pool, where were those others closed? I tried to follow the sources in your cite, but they were all dead and a few quick jabs at Google didn’t give me any useful details, except for this which is a press release from the Indiana BMV. According to that, though, they reviewed 36 branches to close and only shuttered 27. I’d be interested in the criteria if you know of a source for it and how well each scored for closure.
When one side is desperate to prevent the passage of laws designed to thwart voter fraud, I think that says a lot.
Right, the administration finally caved after lots of protest, and most notably after being completely unable to come up with a valid reason to close that branch that didn’t include voter suppression. The coincidence of a voter-ID law and widespread BMV closings are the smoking gun here. If it’s not enough to convince you that voter suppression was the goal, then no, I don’t have any cites as to the governor’s intentions regarding this law. I chatted with him a couple of times when we got our hair cut at the same barber shop (my haircuts took considerably longer than his), but this issue never came up.
Except when that patently is *not *the reason, and something else patently is, hmm? :dubious:
What does it say to you that virtually no voter fraud incidents, none, have been found that would have been prevented by these laws, despite a pretty intense search by those highly motivated to find a justification? And that the known, identified real problems with absentee ballots are not addressed at all?
Have you thought about what potential fraud situations the Voter ID laws would prevent?
A person would have to show up at the polling place, claiming to be someone who he knows is a registered voter, and he knows that this person has not voted, and he has to assume that none of the people working at the poll, or the people standing next to him in line, are going to know this person who’s likely to be their neighbor. Any of these goes wrong, and the penalties are severe. And what’s the upside for taking that risk? Why would anyone try to pull this off?
The whole thing is just implausible. The idea that there is widespread fraud of this sort is just nuts based on the implausibility alone, plus we have looked and no one has found any evidence of it.
Why take these measures that we know would prevent eligible voters from voting? What’s the benefit?
The only possible benefit is a benefit only to Republicans, by reducing the votes from populations who are very likely to vote for their opponents. Saying that the laws are designed to prevent fraud is simply dishonest.
In all my time living abroad in foreign countries, I have never once heard anyone claim that voter ID requirements disenfranchised the poor. Is this a purely American way of thinking?
The overwhelming consensus in those foreign countries seemed to be that requiring voter ID was simply obvious common sense.
It would, if your premise was correct. But in-person voter fraud is vanishingly rare; the vast majority of fraud is in absentee balloting and registration. Nonetheless, there is no push to curb absentee ballot fraud.
When one side is desperate to pass laws that correct a problem that doesn’t exist, and ignores a problem that does exist but benefits it (absentee voters largely being Republican), I think that says a lot.
What are the new restrictions in NC?
No, but you can drive for two to the voting place. 
I do agree there is a difference in terms of right vs priv, but both are regulated by the states and both are needed. (And, as someone with lots of family in the rurals, most of the out of the way places let anyone drive as a matter of course and only painfully regulate about it them when they hit something.)
I’m not trying to solve a problem. I’m trying to see if the idea of Voter IDs is not palatable because of ideology or practicality. Amending a voter ID initiative to take into account the hardships would abridge the practicality of the issue. Saying you disagree with establishing a base on the moon because it’s not practical (And way expensive) is one thing. Saying you disagree with it because GW Bush proposed it is another. If it’s ideology driven, I will pretty much stop participating because reality will get dropped in most cases.
But what are the new restrictions vs the old restrictions?
This was asking for a personal threshold and illustrating a potential threshold value as an example.
Why do you say that? It is each election from two before to two after the passage of the laws showing that the participation isn’t dropping. What additional information or statistics can you provide that counter these? I’m genuinely interested.
I get your opinion that these are all about voter turn out. In my opinion, they are simply fear mongering for votes on both sides, as both parties always do. Rs decide to make something a part of their platform to combat “fraud” (fear the people stealing your votes!) and the Ds decide to fight it by citing “poor, helpless people” who are hurt by the measures (fear the people trying to crush you!)
The same thing happened with the ACA, with the Rs bringing up “poor, helpless people” (fear the intrusion into your lives) who were hurt by the law and the Ds fear mongering for the spectre of catastrophic health issues (fear dieing horribly in the streets) happening to anyone/everyone.
In both cases, there are truths to each side’s points, but they’ve been exaggerated for their causes. I’m more interested in the data and information that each side can put forth and seeing if it holds up against what has already been measured.
The problem is that this is implied causality. “Two things happened together, ergo conspiracy of evil.”
This is why I would like clarification of the BMV closures: You are concentrating on a single branch of 27. If the other 26 were in predominantly poor/minority areas, I would agree with your assessment and agree that it’s an overtly negative influence on voting in Indiana. If they were distributed more randomly or against a criteria, while obviously not perfect as your example of Gary shows, that they followed without thinking it’s less clear-cut.
I know, a politician not thinking about the ramifications of their actions beyond a short-term sound bite (e.g. “I cut spending!”)? That’s unpossible! They are all evil masterminds bent on subverting their opponents’ positions and getting themselves the greatest amount of power at all costs. That’s why Obama is now our President for life and he won’t be ineligible to run in 2014.
Even the evidence presented is pretty weak that there is actual voter fraud occurring. After researching the 120 brought to trial referenced in the article provided by Budget Player Cadet, pretty much every one is some dim bulb trying to register and/or vote when they shouldn’t.
With this low incidence of…er…“fraud,” I think some education of the voter location staff and/or a guide to who and why gets a ballot prior to poll opening would be very useful in stopping that sort of voting issue. As you noted, the Voter ID laws do nothing to counter these actual issues with the voting process.
Those other countries have different ID standards.
As noted, Americans generally express antipathy towards the concept of universal federal ID, so we don’t have them. Those other countries do.
A good number of Voter ID opponents would probably come on board if there actually was a universal federal ID that could be easily distributed to everybody. But a number of current Voter ID supporters are against that idea, as noted above.
Also, it’s a solution in search of a(n actual) problem. Voter fraud may be an issue. But it isn’t currently one, at least not one that’s been demonstrated to even a moderate level of confidence.
And when you have the occasional elected officials (granted the dumber ones) admitting Voter ID drives are about suppressing minority votes, you can see where people might be a bit cautious about motives.
What voter fraud? Since this is Great Debates, I’d like it if you linked to a study or two showing us the scope of the voter fraud problem that needs thwarting.
Good luck finding one, because there aren’t any.
Since when do we pass laws designed to fix a problem that hasn’t been studied? Since one side of the aisle realized those laws might disenfranchise folks who vote for the other side.
You’re right about the implied causality. The implication is strong enough for me. As I said, I have no special insight into Mitch Daniels’s motives, and he certainly wasn’t dumb enough to make them widely known. If you’re not convinced by the coincidence, there’s nothing else I can point to.
I don’t know the criteria for closing the other branches. Indiana being what it is, undoubtedly some branches were closed in rural, conservative areas. That’s not the point, though, as *any *branch closing is going to affect low-income people more than higher-income people. Turning a 15 minute drive into a 45 minute drive to get a license has a much different effect on a poor person than a middle-class person.
Honestly, I’m just going to drop this line of argumentation. The point is that the law is a stupid, unnecessary, partisan attack on quite possibly the most fundamental right of a democracy. The fact that it hurts minorities the most is just icing on the cake, honestly. I honestly don’t care if it was designed to attack minorities specifically or if it just does so as a side-effect. Racism is a slightly lesser affront than undermining the democratic process.
The rural poor… Well, I’m not convinced that they vote republican en masse the way you might think. Furthermore, the DMV closings have been in overwhelmingly minority districts.
What, all 100-odd cases? I dunno. A national fingerprint database would be pretty useful. Some way to identify people that doesn’t involve needing them to trek to the local DMV. But it needs to not create a problem worse than what it solves. And it needs to be worth the money spent. If the only purpose of said fingerprint database was to solve this problem, I would be against it, because… it’s a waste of money. In fact, basically any expenditure to combat a threat which is all but nonexistent is.
Great. Then voter ID is a terrible idea. Problem solved, we can all go get drunk or something.
As said, that fingerprint database sure does sound useful…
Oh, it’s certainly a weaker argument than “There is no significant voter fraud and this is a colossal waste of time and money”, but let’s be clear here - for many people, it is a very significant effort to get a photo ID. It’s not easy if the DMV is far away from you. It’s not easy if you have to work 2-3 shifts daily. It’s not easy if you’re stuck in the all-too-familiar situation that so many of the working poor are stuck in.
Yeah, I’ll admit it’s not common. But the issue is that there are a lot of things in this chain that can go wrong. And while you’re worrying about that, keep in mind that you’re missing work. And isn’t voting not that big a deal…? You see where I’m going with this, right?
Mount Desert Island. The nearest DMV was in Ellsworth (although I’m not sure on which side of Ellsworth - I think it was somewhere near downtown. Ellsworth is pretty large.), and while it certainly is a place where a lot of rich people live (we call them “summer people”; you can probably figure out why), there’s definitely a lot of people who aren’t wealthy. Like my family. Or my neighbors. I was lucky - my dad had a car. But my neighbor’s father did not. He never drove, and neither did his kids. If they had to go anywhere, they had to ask his brother.
I’m guessing it’s partially backlash. I honestly don’t know. Hey, if these laws do nothing, great. They’re still shit, but hey.
Many countries already have a long tradition of a compulsory centrally-issued national ID cards (e.g., the German Personalausweis). In the U.S., we don’t. There’s no such thing as a national ID, and government-issued ID comes from a panoply of different offices with different rules and procedures.
When you already have a compulsory ID, using that for voter ID makes sense. When you don’t, how does it make sense?
Voting stations are staffed mostly by volunteers. In my part of the world, they are mostly retirees who spend a couple of days a year sitting in donated space. Everybody votes on the same day (or couple of days, counting school board elections, primaries, etc.), but DMV business is spread over the year. There’s no economic case to be made for having permanent paid staff in rented office space when usage on any given day will be very low.
It’s the difference between a civil right (voting) and a privilege (driving).
Absentee ballots, AFTER you are registered. The post office will deliver the ballot to your door and collect it again, but only after you haul yourself to the DMV to get the necessary documents.
Depends entirely on what ID they’ve got and how long it has been expired. In my state, e.g., an expired (or even current) out-of-state license is NOT evidence of identity: you still need your birth certificate (and if your current name is not the name on the birth certificate, copies of legal documents substantiating the name change, such as marriage certificates, divorce decrees, adoption papers, etc.).
Voter ID requirements don’t do ANYTHING to prevent the wrong person from casting an absentee ballot. The ballot is sent to a person who is properly registered and showed ID to register, but somebody else (in cases that have been prosecuted here, usually a spouse or other relative) completed and returned the ballot. Nobody at the post office or the elections office verifies the ID of the person actually voting absentee, so the presence or absence of voter ID laws does nothing to prevent the most common kind of vote fraud.
In a close election, sure. There are more urban poor than rural poor.
Ah, but in my state we had a little glitch: thousands of people registered to vote at the DMV, showed their proof of citizenship at the DMV, and still had their voter registration placed “in suspense” because the DMV computer system could not talk to the elections computer system. For some months, this was a great secret: you filled out the form at the DMV, and you were supposed to just know that showing your ID at one government office was insufficient and you needed to go to a different office (possibly not even in the same town) to show your ID again. (Only after six months did the DMV change procedure to tell people about the suspense file and how to remove yourself from it.)
If you are middle class or better, you have more ability to drive around to multiple offices in multiple locations than those in lesser socioeconomic circumstances.
If you can drive, you already have a driver’s license and you don’t *need *any more ID.
Quite a catch, huh?