Except: that also applies to US passports and US military ID. Neither of them shows that you live in the state. They don’t have place of residence on them. And, military ID isn’t even proof of citizenship: a non-American can be in the US military. However, those two pieces of ID are accepted in Texas, where the poster who raised the student ID issue is posting from.
So why are those two pieces of ID acceptable, but not student ID?
One speculation is that people who have passports tend to be higher income and therefore more likely to vote for a particular party. And that people in the military are more likely to vote for that same particular party.
And that university students are more likely to vote for a different particular party.
Englishman here and I share the confusion of the OP. Certainly some of the replies have been helpful but surely polling can’t be a matter of ‘Come one, come all’, ‘Vote early, vote often’? In other words wouldn’t there have to be some control over the business? What’s to prevent multiple voting, voting by foreign nationals, etc. I saw the reply saying that the problem was negligible but how would they even know how big the problem was without some form of control?
The issue, as mentioned in this and several other threads, is that the choice of ID which can be used to show identity, may be skewed to favour a particular party.
Proving identity to vote is in theory neutral in effect.
As soon as the list of valid ID is narrowed in a way that favours middle class and higher income voters, and makes it more difficult for lower income voters to qualify, then it looks much less benign.
It should be noted, to the extent of GQ, that there is a long history in certain states of enacting “common sense” laws in regard to voting (e.g. literacy tests) which on their face were neutral in their effect, but which had the effect of restricting the poor and black vote. The zaniest of such shenanigans were only put to bed by the Voting Rights act of 1965.
In that context, it is legitimate to wonder whether the new voter ID laws are done out of legitimate security concern, or a desire to return to the “bad old days”.
As a counterpoint to Wesley Clark, the Democrats try to make it very easy to vote. In the US, you need to be a citizen to vote. The National Voter Registration Act makes it illegal for states to actually require a person to prove they are a citizen in order to register. Theoretically, all 11+million illegal immigrants plus all legal aliens could go to a registrar’s office tomorrow and pinkie-promise that they are citizens and be registered to vote. One issue with voter ID that is almost never raised is that since in many states you can only get a state ID if you are a legal resident then requiring ID will at least keep illegal immigrants from voting.
And that I think is the big difference between the Republicans and Democrats on this issue. Republicans want to limit voting to US citizens and if a few citizens can’t vote then oh well they should get the right documentation. The Democrats believe every citizen should vote* and want a system that makes it so easy that people will vote that are not legally entitled too.
*Except in my experience, some of the Dems on this board are hypocritical about it. I was once denied my right to vote because someone have signed in as me and voted earlier in the day. This could have been avoided with voter ID laws but everytime I bring it up in those threads, it gets dismissed as an abberation or unimportant. So the right of a citizen to vote is important unless you are me? You are a Republican? What is the standard?
Nobody is saying the existing system (without ID requirement) is perfect and problem-free. The recent voter-ID laws are controversial because they are seen as part of a widespread effort to suppress voter turnout. Other measures include reducing the number of polling places, eliminating polling places at certain types of neighborhoods, eliminating early voting, making it harder to vote by mail, shortening polling hours, etc. Some politicians have seemingly admitted/claimed that these laws are designed to sway the election. This article is a few years old but still relevant.
Justice Scalia wrote the SCOTUS decision striking down Arizona’s attempt to require a blanket additional proof of citizenship for all, finding that that state law was pre-empted by the National Voter Registration Act: Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council Of Arizona, Inc.
However, he also indicated that there were ways for Arizona to implement citizenship requirements for registration. For instance, the State can rely on information already in its own possession, as indicated in the syllabus to the decision:
[QUOTE=Syllabus]
Nonetheless, while the NVRA forbids States to demand that an applicant submit additional information beyond that required by the Federal Form, it does not preclude States from “deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility.”
[/QUOTE]
As well, he agreed that Arizona had the power to ensure that its voter registration requirements were met, and a federal law could not prevent that. Rather, the state and the Federal Elections Commission should work together to achieve that goal, rather than allowing Arizona to unilaterally add an additional requirement to that set out by the federal law. In case of a disagreement, Arizona would have to prove the need for the additional requirement:
[QUOTE=syllabus]
It would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a State from obtaining the information nec-essary to enforce its voter qualifications. The NVRA can be read to avoid such a conflict, however. Section 1973gg–7(b)(1) permits the EAC to include on the Federal Form information “necessary to enable the appropriate State election official to assess the eligibility of the applicant.” That validly conferred discretionary executive authority is properly exercised (as the Government has proposed) to require the inclusion of Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement if such evidence is necessary to enable Arizona to enforce its citizenship qualification.
The NVRA permits a State to request the EAC to include state- specific instructions on the Federal Form, see 42 U. S. C. §1973gg– 7(a)(2), and a State may challenge the EAC’s rejection of that request (or failure to act on it) in a suit under the Administrative Procedure Act. That alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications remains open to Arizona here. Should the EAC reject or decline to act on a renewed request, Arizona would have the opportunity to establish in a reviewing court that a mere oath will not suffice to effectuate its citizenship requirement and that the EAC is therefore under a nondiscretionary duty to include Arizona’s concrete-evidence requirement on the Federal Form.
[/QUOTE]
There is some control over the business. As always, the details vary from state to state, but it usually goes something like this:
First, you register to vote, and provide whatever documentation your state requires for that. You might at this point be asked to declare a party, but that at most determines what primary you can vote in, and maybe gets you on that party’s mailing list: You’re still free to vote for whomever you want. You also always have the option of declaring no party.
When you register, you’re assigned a polling place geographically. These are often schools, but can be just about anywhere. Here, my polling place is in city hall, but when I was in Montana, it changed from being the local office of the fish and wildlife commission to being the university’s football stadium. I’ve also heard of church halls and social clubs being used.
On election day, you show up to your polling place, and introduce yourself to the nice folks at the table. They look up your name in a big book of everyone registered to vote at that place, and you sign next to your name. They take some sort of measure to verify you’re who you say you are: This can be anything from showing photo ID, to comparing signatures, to showing a utility bill that was addressed to you at your registered address, to them recognizing you personally as a neighbor.
They hand you a ballot, and you go over to a little both to privately fill it out (or maybe there’s a machine of some sort in the booth, which you use). If it’s a paper ballot, then you put it in privacy sleeve so passers-by can’t see which way you voted. You might have to tear off a perforated tab at the bottom with a serial number on it, so they can keep track of which ballots have been issued. You then carry it over to a scanning machine and feed it in.
Then you walk back past the table with the friendly people, they hand you a sticker that says “I voted” that you can stick on your shirt if you want, and you go on your way.
Note that there is always a registry so that the same person can’t vote in the same name twice, and there’s always some means of verifying identity. To vote twice, you’d have to impersonate someone else, and vote as them. And to vote as someone else, you’d need to be able to spoof whatever your state requires as proof of identity.
I think there’s a lot of ignorance about the motor voter concept; most of the opposition I’ve heard from people grumbling about it is based on some kind of erroneous notion that it means that you’re automatically registered to vote when you get a drivers’ license.
Which isn’t true; it merely gives them the opportunity to register at the same time as getting or renewing a drivers’ license.
I guess there’s some validity to the idea that if someone can’t be arsed to go out of their way enough to register to vote, are they someone who we really want to vote in the first place? Kind of like the “Starship Troopers” concept writ extremely small, in low-contrast ink.
Actually no, there is not always a means of verifying identity. Prior to the latest set of laws in NC, if you were registered to vote you would go in, sign a form attesting that you were [person named at address] and vote. In the event that the record showed you had already voted, your vote would be provisionally recorded and the duplicate investigated (with possible felony charges if someone voted falsely). There was no requirement for having photo ID, utility bills, or known neighbors at the polling place.
I don’t know of anywhere that would try comparing the handwriting of signatures for ID, that’s difficult even for highly trained people (most people involved in an election are volunteers), easy to spoof, lots of legitimate reasons for a signature to not match (especially for elderly or injured people), and so likely to have bias that judges get their gavels revved up for it.
I agree with Pantastic - up until the recent Voter ID laws, I did not have to verify my identity at all, I just had to tell them my name and address, they would look me up in the registration list, and I would sign my name on the list next to where they’d have my printed name.
They never had my signature from anywhere else for a comparison, I didn’t have to have a utility bill, and I never knew the poll workers. Just tell them who I am and my address, sign next to my name in the book, and go vote.
I almost always would know other people in the queue, however. If someone came in and tried to present himself as me, there would be a pretty good chance that he would be overheard by someone who knew me.
With the current Voter ID law, I show my drivers license when I tell them my name.
As to the OP, I know it’s hard to imagine, but just here in Texas, there are close to a million eligible voters who have no photo ID. A large number of these people are not registered, however. In order to register, they’d have to get their birth certificate and register, which they’d also have to do to get a photo ID, so registering to vote for these people is at least as big a challenge as the photo ID.
But that still leaves hundreds of thousands of registered voters, just here in Texas, who have no photo ID. These people now cannot vote unless they jump through all the hoops. The vast majority of these people would vote for the Democratic party candidate. You may wonder how these people registered in the first place if they don’t have their BC, and the answer is that registration stays in effect forever, and many people registered at one time but no longer have the paperwork.
A constant theme is that many of the voting ID laws that are criticized are asking people to jump through hoops instead of making it as easy as possible. PR, part of the US, has voting ID law, but the government tries to catch all. Extended hours, mobile registration, PSAs, etc., all to get as many as possible registered.
In Minnesota it’s simple to vote in person: tell the official in charge your name, they’ll turn to the page with your name, and you sign the line. No ID required. The only thing stopping someone else from signing your name is the election officials are people from your neighborhood (and church, school, clubs) and you can’t be sure who they recognize by face. Plus it’s a fraud charge if you’re caught.
Also in Minnesota we have same-day registration. You can bring a passport or birth certificate and proof of residency (utility bill or school/college record), OR you can have someone who’s already registered vouch for you. When my son moved back from college, I vouched for him; it was a simple piece of paper with some nice legal warnings about committing fraud.
No fuss (in spite of proposed laws years ago from the GOP to go all Texas-style and require IDs and advanced registration).
Still it’s a valid comparison in the sense of it being a matter of “state” policy to maximize or not ease of suffrage beyond the baseline federal mandate of VRA and HAVA.
One of the other issues that might be relevant- When I vote in Canada (federal, or provincial), the voting booth is usually in a school (or some such community center) meaning the total electorate served by that polling district is maybe about the area of draw for a primary school. Within that, there are probably 5 to 10 separate “polling stations” depending on which poll you are in - typically no more than several blocks. (Going on a memory from decades ago - A town with a population of 15,000 would have, say, 6 schools of about 8 polls each, plus a few in churches, for 50 polls for less than 10,000 eligible voters, or 200 voters per poll. The worst lineup I found was waiting until an hour before closing, and there were maybe 50 people lined up to get their poll number checked and then waiting, so there was not a confusing line at each poll where they handed out ballots. One vote kiosk per poll.
When I see news reports of lineups around the block in elections elsewhere in the world, especially the USA where they’ve done it for centuries - I often think “WTF?”.
Oh, and almost all paper ballots marked by pencil, counted within 4 to 5 hours - why? Because typically there’s one position to vote for.
This is another point about US elections, for any foreigners who might not know: We have long ballots. We have elected officials at many different levels of government, plus most states have some mechanism for ballot initiatives the public votes on directly. At a single election, an American voter might well be voting for a city council member, mayor, a half-dozen judges, a county commissioner, the city coroner and prosecutor, a member each of the state senate and house, governor, the state attorney general and secretary of state, US representative, US senator, and President. Plus possibly as many as a dozen different ballot initiatives. The joke is that we even vote for the dogcatcher, and while I’ve never actually seen that, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that there’s some locality where the animal control officer is actually elected.
Now, not all localities have elections for all of those positions, and you won’t always get all of them on the same ballot, but a lineup like that wouldn’t be considered extraordinary.
A large reason for this is because state legislatures, generally controlled by Republicans, have been cutting back on the number of polling places, allegedly for financial reasons. You used to be able to walk to your polling place, now you’re lucky if it’s in the same town you live in.
Back to the OP’s question: As a Canadian observer I found this John Oliver explanation very helpful and answered many of the questions I had about this same issue.
My suggestion to the OP is the next question they should to ask should be about *gerrymandering*. I only heard about that concept a couple years ago, but my jaw hit the floor.
Of course I can only speak for myself as a non-American, but I really did grow up admiring and believing that America was the country to which all democracies should aspire to be. Now I realize how untrue that is and I find it very sad that these kinds of voting system manipulations are allowed to happen. This is the kind of stuff I’d expect to hear about in some banana republic. not the United States of America.