# Are voter ID policies (and their supporters) racist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2016, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039 "2016-11-15T04:38:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 10:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/81 "2016-11-16T10:00:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The case I think I know of comes from my memory and in my memory was opposed by Democrats. But if I just said that and someone asked me for a cite, I’d have to spend time searching for it and perhaps I’d discover that my memory was wrong, and then be attacked for making a claim that wasn’t true. > > So I chose instead to ask what case he was thinking of. That way the person who made the claim has to support it, instead of the person who just has a vague memory that the claim might not be accurate. Well, you could easily phrase it along the lines of “I have a vague recollection of a fingerprint-based identification scheme that was blocked by Democrats; I think it was in the state of [your best guess], in the year of [your best guess] and involved [any detail you can vaguely recall, to the best of your ability]”, and if you get attacked for something as mild as _that_, then I’ll happily come to your defense. Further, any minor detail could help interested parties research the event, if it happened. But if that _is_ what you’re recalling, then it’s not exactly responsive to what Evil Economist was saying, which I gather was to the effect of offers of technical solutions to identification problems have always been rejected by parties whose unspoken goal was election manipulation. That some Democrats somewhere might have been on the rejecting side doesn’t challenge the premise, it just throws a _tu quoque_ at it. Heck, I’m willing to accept on no specific evidence at all that some Democrats have engaged in election manipulation as recently as a week ago, and plan to do so again next November. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/82 "2016-11-16T10:29:33Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, you could easily phrase it along the lines of “I have a vague recollection of a fingerprint-based identification scheme that was blocked by Democrats; I think it was in the state of [your best guess], in the year of [your best guess] and involved [any detail you can vaguely recall, to the best of your ability]”, and if you get attacked for something as mild as _that_, then I’ll happily come to your defense. Further, any minor detail could help interested parties research the event, if it happened. > > But if that _is_ what you’re recalling, then it’s not exactly responsive to what Evil Economist was saying, which I gather was to the effect of offers of technical solutions to identification problems have always been rejected by parties whose unspoken goal was election manipulation. That some Democrats somewhere might have been on the rejecting side doesn’t challenge the premise, it just throws a _tu quoque_ at it. > > Heck, I’m willing to accept on no specific evidence at all that some Democrats have engaged in election manipulation as recently as a week ago, and plan to do so again next November. Very well: what you said. I have a vague recollection of a proposal to use fingerprints, maybe in one of the southwest states… Arizona? New Mexico? sometime in the past 20 years or so, and it being opposed either by Democrats or a left-leaning advocacy group. No cite. If true, this is not a tu quoque. It’s a demonstration that opposition to such ideas can arise from non-racist motives, such as those presumably held by the Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/83 "2016-11-16T10:46:23Z")
Reading through the latter half of the thread, I’m not sure the racism angle is even still under serious discussion except in the form of accusations that liberals are trying to make it all about racism. Specifically on the Evil Economist comment to which you responded, I followed it back and found what _he_ was responding to, then followed _that_ back… and eventually ended up at post 17, with race barely mentioned at all in the chain. No big deal. I personally think the issue starts with a grab for power (or at least trying to bias the process for an improved chance at power) - any racist angle is just gravy. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/84 "2016-11-16T16:16:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t accept your attempt to switch from “disenfranchisement,” to “effective disenfranchisement,” and then to further define how much difficulty is necessary to trigger the “effectiveness.” That’s a job I am certainly willing to let the let the legislature do, and the courts judge. If I don’t have the proper piece of paper, do my state’s laws allow me to vote, yes or no? If I can’t, then I am disenfranchised, by the very definition of the word. > [@Bricker](#): > > But not you. If you’ve lost at the legislature and then lost again trying to convince the courts that there is “effective disenfranchisement,” then you cannot keep claiming in debate that this “effective disenfranchisement” exists. Your side had the chance to prove this claim in court, and failed. > > (If you succeeded, then I have no problem accepting the need to change that state law to be more accomodating.) Yes, “my side” has been successful in obtaining a [permanent injunction](http://www.shawneecourt.org/DocumentCenter/View/556) barring enforcement of portions of the state’s voter ID regulations. Other cases regarding other elements of the law are still in litigation. > [@Bricker](#): > > With all due respect to your understanding of the rules… what’s your state? I’d prefer to look at your state’s laws myself and then answer the question. Kansas. See the Secretary of State’s website at [http://www.gotvoterid.com/](http://www.gotvoterid.com/). > [@Bricker](#): > > Because society is prepared to recognize one group’s concerns as being more reasonable. That’s how a representative democracy works. Your argument, however, was that voter id increases the public’s confidence in the outcome of the election. Are you now changing that to voter id increases the confidence of ONE GROUP within the larger public, while acknowledging that it decreases the confidence of other groups? > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure: and there was no Voter ID required to use absentee ballots, right? Nope. There’s nobody checking to see whether the person filing out the ballot is the person in whose name the ballot is issued. However, the population using mail-in ballots skews older, and older people are more likely to vote Republican, so this is an area where “voter fraud” hasn’t been of much concern to the powers-that-be. > [@Bricker](#): > > So how does her case impinge on the ID requirement? I was using her as a rebuttal to the assertion that people without ID are too disconnected from society to be informed enough to vote, an assertion made by \*\*UltraVires \*\*in post 46. The need for ID correlates with the need to be buying booze and cigarettes, or flying around the country, but I’m not seeing any (positive) correlation between boozing and voting–do you? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/85 "2016-11-16T16:28:11Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Very well: what you said. I have a vague recollection of a proposal to use fingerprints, maybe in one of the southwest states… Arizona? New Mexico? sometime in the past 20 years or so, and it being opposed either by Democrats or a left-leaning advocacy group. No cite. > > If true, this is not a tu quoque. It’s a demonstration that opposition to such ideas can arise from non-racist motives, such as those presumably held by the Democrats. [This is all I could find in a search](http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/01/26/thumbs-up-new-mexico-to-study/). The link claims bipartisan support for the bill, but I couldn’t find anything saying if or why it was killed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/86 "2016-11-16T16:51:25Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > If I don’t have the proper piece of paper, do my state’s laws allow me to vote, yes or no? If I can’t, then I am disenfranchised, by the very definition of the word. No, I don’t agree. The word means that your franchise has been denied by law. If you don’t have the proper piece of paper because you refuse to expend the necessary effort to obtain it, you’re not disenfranchised. > [@](#): > > Yes, “my side” has been successful in obtaining a [permanent injunction](http://www.shawneecourt.org/DocumentCenter/View/556) barring enforcement of portions of the state’s voter ID regulations. Other cases regarding other elements of the law are still in litigation. I’m perfectly happy with that – it’s what the system is for. It’show we decide disputes between contrary views in our society. > [@](#): > > Kansas. See the Secretary of State’s website at [http://www.gotvoterid.com/](http://www.gotvoterid.com/). From that cite, I learn that in Kansas you can submit a Form RCD (Request for Consideration of U.S. Citizenship Documents by State Election Board of Kansas) at no cost when you don’t have the requisite documentation. > [@](#): > > Your argument, however, was that voter id increases the public’s confidence in the outcome of the election. Are you now changing that to voter id increases the confidence of ONE GROUP within the larger public, while acknowledging that it decreases the confidence of other groups? There is no change. In a representative democracy, it’s not at all unusual to find that a law or policy does not enjoy universal support. When I speak of “the public,” enjoying greater confidence, that’s not a statement that every single solitary member of the public feels that way. It’s a statement that in general, the public will – as expressed through the voice of their elected representatives – is in agreement. So voter ID increase’s the public’s confidence, but that does say or imply that every single member of the public agrees. > [@](#): > > Nope. There’s nobody checking to see whether the person filing out the ballot is the person in whose name the ballot is issued. Yes… so your example of the nursing home resident is not actually a problem, since she will vote absentee and does not need an ID. > [@](#): > > I was using her as a rebuttal to the assertion that people without ID are too disconnected from society to be informed enough to vote, an assertion made by \*\*UltraVires \*\*in post 46. The need for ID correlates with the need to be buying booze and cigarettes, or flying around the country, but I’m not seeing any (positive) correlation between boozing and voting–do you? Got it. Well, I’ll let UltraVires defend that point, then. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/87 "2016-11-16T16:53:07Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > [This is all I could find in a search](http://editions.lib.umn.edu/electionacademy/2015/01/26/thumbs-up-new-mexico-to-study/). The link claims bipartisan support for the bill, but I couldn’t find anything saying if or why it was killed. That rings a bell, and if I recall it was the EFF that lobbed hard against it. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/88 "2016-11-16T16:59:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes… so your example of the nursing home resident is not actually a problem, since she will vote absentee and does not need an ID. Wait, so your voter ID laws simply don’t apply to absentee ballots? But you think they’ll reduce fraud? And these vote fraudsters will only commit voter fraud in person, in front of an audience of witnesses? And they’re not clever enough to think of absentee ballot fraud? My confidence in the voting process is now officially shot. Whose rights should we trample to get me my confidence back? The elderly? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/89 "2016-11-16T17:19:44Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Wait, so your voter ID laws simply don’t apply to absentee ballots? But you think they’ll reduce fraud? And these vote fraudsters will only commit voter fraud in person, in front of an audience of witnesses? And they’re not clever enough to think of absentee ballot fraud? > > My confidence in the voting process is now officially shot. Whose rights should we trample to get me my confidence back? The elderly? I’m all for that. If Ohio did not have absentee ballots, it probably would have gone handily to Clinton. (Or at least been much closer.) If it has been determined to be okay to disenfranchise (sorry bricker, I meant “erect barriers between the eligible voter and their actual ability to vote.”) people for partisan gain, then we need to start doing it ourselves. Removing absentee voting would actually be pretty good from the standpoint of preventing electoral fraud, as that is where all of it actually happens. I could cite a bunch of articles about absentee voter fraud, but I am sure everyone else has the google machine too. There is a thread elsewhere on this board of someone bragging about abusing the absentee ballot system in a way that is apparently not illegal (that we could find), but is definitely against the principles of one person, one vote, and that’s just what is admitted and bragged about. The fact that it would drastically reduce the republican turnout to vote would be a side effect that prior to now, I would be abhorred by, but at this point, I am all for it. Ethics do not, or at least cannot be taken into consideration when your opposition is unethical. So, Bricker, can you give me a compelling reason why absentee ballots should not be on the chopping block? Old people can make their way to the polls to vote just like the rest of us. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/90 "2016-11-16T17:25:45Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Wait, so your voter ID laws simply don’t apply to absentee ballots? Generally, no. > [@](#): > > But you think they’ll reduce fraud? No, I said that their value was improving public confidence in the result of an ultra-close election. > [@](#): > > And these vote fraudsters will only commit voter fraud in person, in front of an audience of witnesses? And they’re not clever enough to think of absentee ballot fraud? Because Voter ID allows an easier criminal conviction for a non-citizen voting, it’s of value. The same general protection would apply to an absentee ballot – it’s mailed to a named person at a specific address, making it harder to deny the casting of a ballot by a non-citizen. > [@](#): > > My confidence in the voting process is now officially shot. Whose rights should we trample to get me my confidence back? The elderly? Please see my response in post #38 above: > [@Bricker](#): > > How is this observation relevant? > > It’s already clear that these measures don’t help your confidence, but they help the confidence of others, and that’s the legitimate goal of the laws. The mere fact that you, personally, are not moved is of no relevance. > > It’s as though the city council approved a plan to redecorate the town square and you objected on the grounds that the proposed decoration scheme didn’t look good to you. > > In a representative democracy, we don’t require unanimous assent. We elect legislators and they make decisions, and our collective chance to rebuke or endorse their judgement comes at election time. > > So what you, personally, feel is not remotely significant to the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/91 "2016-11-16T17:36:05Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > The fact that it would drastically reduce the republican turnout to vote would be a side effect that prior to now, I would be abhorred by, but at this point, I am all for it. Ethics do not, or at least cannot be taken into consideration when your opposition is unethical. > > So, Bricker, can you give me a compelling reason why absentee ballots should not be on the chopping block? Old people can make their way to the polls to vote just like the rest of us. Yes, I have an excellent reason: it’s a proposal that doesn’t command any support from our elected legislators, and doesn’t represent the will of the people. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/92 "2016-11-16T17:51:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I don’t agree. > > The word means that your franchise has been denied by law. If you don’t have the proper piece of paper because you refuse to expend the necessary effort to obtain it, you’re not disenfranchised. If I do expend effort but still don’t have the piece of paper (cf. my five-month wait mentioned above), does that still count as a “refusal”? or is my ability to vote blocked by law? I’m lucky–I HAVE a birth certificate on file. What should I do if I’m Dominique Freeman (whose story is linked above)? Did she “refuse” to obtain that piece of paper? What is her culpability? > [@Bricker](#): > > From that cite, I learn that in Kansas you can submit a Form RCD (Request for Consideration of U.S. Citizenship Documents by State Election Board of Kansas) at no cost when you don’t have the requisite documentation. Yes, you can. The Election Board (three partisan elected officials) will decide if they like you and your evidence, based on purely arbitrary and unwritten criteria. (No potential for abuse there, of course.) Consider the case of [Dale Weber](http://cjonline.com/news-local-state-government/2016-11-01/kansas-election-board-affirms-wichita-man-s-citizenship-right); the election board approved his application primarily on his ability to “recite the birth dates of his parents, his mother’s maiden name and location of his birth in Germany.” If that’s good enough, what’s the point of the law? > [@Bricker](#): > > There is no change. In a representative democracy, it’s not at all unusual to find that a law or policy does not enjoy universal support. When I speak of “the public,” enjoying greater confidence, that’s not a statement that every single solitary member of the public feels that way. It’s a statement that in general, the public will – as expressed through the voice of their elected representatives – is in agreement. I’m not arguing that every single member must feel that way; I’m arguing that if Group A feels more confident and Group B feels less confident, the **average** level of confidence across the population hasn’t changed. The only change is that parts of Group B can’t vote anymore. Consider an analogy. In the 1950s, a majority of white Southerners “felt better” about elections when blacks could not vote. Did their feelings of confidence justify the consequences for those members of the public who didn’t have a voice? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/93 "2016-11-16T17:57:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I have an excellent reason: it’s a proposal that doesn’t command any support from our elected legislators, and doesn’t represent the will of the people. I am a people too my friend. But, just to be clear, from an ethical or legal or constitutional standpoint, you would have no problem with a democratically controlled legislature cutting or removing absentee ballot voting for the admitted purpose of reducing republican turnout? The reason that it doesn’t have much support is because democrats tend to want the vote to be more inclusive, so even something like that that could give a win, would typically be against what the electorate want. (IOW, we want a fair fight, even if it means we lose.) Republicans, in their vote suppression efforts, have shown that they want to win, even if it does not mean fighting fair. Now, I am sure you could point to officials and employees on either side doing things that are not in keeping with the ideals of universal suffrage, but I think that the democrat doing so would be looked upon unfavorably by their own party, as opposed to the republican who will be rewarded for their efforts. We can change that. The democratic electorate has never said that it should be harder for the elderly to vote. We do have a voice. We are trying to find a way. I for one am thinking of starting a campaign against absentee ballots, if I can get enough others on board, then it will have support of the legislature, and will be the will of the people. The fact that it will severely cripple republicans, we can openly admit is the impetus. I think we can get our people behind that. It’s not a “Tu quoque”, but I don’t know what the latin phrase for, “The other side does it, and is kicking our ass with it, so we have to do it too.” ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/94 "2016-11-16T18:04:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _Numerous other countries have a NATIONAL ID requirement._ They have a national ID, you gotta get one. :rolleyes: > > We dont. And getting those national IDs is not particularly onerous, and many of the countries which have them have agreements with other countries so those national IDs which are not passports per se count as one for purposes of traveling to those other countries. I can travel to a lot of countries on a credit-card sized national ID rather than with my passport, and both are free (if I renew them outside the due renewal date for reasons other than change of address, there is a fee for the national ID but not for the passport; currently the fee is €14.60 IIRC; if my memory is being wonky then it’s even lower). Oh, and to vote absentee I need to present any of the three documents I can present to vote in person (national ID, passport or driver’s license issued by the country in which I’m voting). ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/95 "2016-11-16T18:06:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The same problem would exist for her to get to the polling place, then? Vote by mail, or have one of those buses go around neighborhoods. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/96 "2016-11-16T18:15:31Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > _Numerous other countries have a NATIONAL ID requirement._ They have a national ID, you gotta get one. I’m fairly certain that Canada does not have a NATIONAL ID requirement, yet still requires an ID to vote. Is Canada’s policy racist? > [@Nava](#): > > And getting those national IDs is not particularly onerous So, you would be in favor of requiring an ID to vote, as long as the process to get the ID was not particularly onerous? ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/97 "2016-11-16T18:26:36Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m fairly certain that Canada does not have a NATIONAL ID requirement, yet still requires an ID to vote. Is Canada’s policy racist? Canada had a National ID requirement up until 4 years ago. It may be interesting to see how things change if a generation of Canadians grow up without easy access to ID, but we have at least another 14 years before that can become much of an issue. (Not a Canadian, but capable of doing minor research using the google machine.) > [@](#): > > So, you would be in favor of requiring an ID to vote, as long as the process to get the ID was not particularly onerous? Yes, that’s what all of us have been saying all along. We just disagree with what is considered to be onerous. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/98 "2016-11-16T18:33:53Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > I’m fairly certain that Canada does not have a NATIONAL ID requirement, yet still requires an ID to vote. Is Canada’s policy racist? No, they dont. When you are registered, they send out a a card, more or less how in CA you get a sample ballot. It’s not a ID card. It just shows you are registered, and if you name is on the list you dont need it. If you are\* not\* registered, then you can vote by showing ID.\* If your name is not listed in the National Register of Electors on election day, you must show proof of identity and residence:\* > **[A Guide to Voting in the Canadian Federal Election](https://settlement.org/ontario/immigration-citizenship/canadian-government/voting/a-guide-to-voting-in-the-canadian-federal-election/)** > > If you are a Canadian citizen you can choose who represents you in federal politics. During a federal election, you can elect your local Member of Parliament (MP) and your vote helps choose the Prime Minister. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/99 "2016-11-16T18:40:11Z")
> **[Voter ID proponents point to laws in other countries](https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/voter-id-proponents-point-to-laws-in-other-countries/2012/07/12/gJQAVlGCfW_blog.html)** > > Eric Holder vowed to fight U.S. voter ID laws, but are they really so outrageous? \*From the report: Poll workers in Ireland can ask voters for proof of identity, but voters have a choice of “five different forms of photo ID, in addition to bank books, credit cards, checkbooks and marriage certificates.” “In Switzerland, every registered voter is sent a registration card prior to an election, and if the voter brings her registration card to the polling place, no additional identification is needed.” “Canada permits any voter who lacks one of the allowed forms of photo identification to present two of forty-five other forms of identification or documentation that have the voter’s name and address on at least one. Acceptable documents include leases, student transcripts, and utility bills.” Sweden’s policy is a bit more vague, requiring that a “voter who is not known to the voting clerks [produce] an identity document or in another way verify her or his identity.” “India allows the use of fifteen different types of identification, ranging from property documents to arms licenses to income tax identity cards. Included, too, are forms of identification most likely to be possessed by the poor… For instance, voters can present ration cards issued to the poor to allow them to buy food staples and kerosene oil at subsidized prices.” That’s in addition to many countries that don’t require ID to vote, such as “Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (with the exception of Northern Ireland),” the authors wrote. They also pointed out that in many other countries, it’s much easier to obtain identification than it is in the United States because ID cards are issued to all citizens automatically:\* From that article there doesnt seem to be any nation (that doesnt automatically give every citizen a national ID card) that has voter ID requirements as tough as Texas, SC, etc. So, your efforts to show “other nations do it” has not only failed, but backfired. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039/100 "2016-11-16T18:44:23Z")
[Per Elections Canada](http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e) You’ll note the 3 methods 1 piece of specific ID. 2 pieces of a wider variety of ID where 1 has your current address (e.g. Utility bill, prescription label) 2 pieces of ID with no address + 1 person to vouch for you [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-voter-id-policies-and-their-supporters-racist/772039.md?page=6)