How do voter ID laws suppress minority votes?

[BrainGlutton]

@aNewLeaf

Let’s take it farther- why is ID enough? Why shouldn’t you have to be able to prove basic competence to cast a vote?

Same reason we don’t have literacy tests, or weight votes according to income or education-level or whatever.

[Chronos]

You want to know how you verify voters when you’re not trying to disenfranchise people? When I lived in Montana, voters were in fact required to provide proof of identity. Acceptable proofs included any government-issued ID (including not just drivers’ licenses but also things like welfare cards), or the voter registration card that was mailed out free to all voters, or any utility bill from the past month. Show one of those, sign on the line, and pick up your ballot.

Or if you want to be really thorough about it, you could do the ink-on-the-thumb thing we use when we’re running an election in a former dictatorship. If anyone suggested we do that here, too, well, I’d think they were being a bit silly, but if that’s what they needed for peace of mind, I’d go along with it.

I wonder why the people pushing for voter ID laws never suggest either of these alternatives?

[John_Mace]

And a note to the OP, who only joined this month. We’ve had many of threads about this topic, they go on for pages and pages and pagers, and I don’t think anyone has changed his mind as a result.

Not sure how your thread is any different from the other recent ones.

[The_Lurker_Above]

@Bryan_Ekers

As a minor note, although government-issued ID is technically necessary to vote in Canada, I can’t recall ever being asked to show it because I don’t think anyone has ever made an effort to screw me out of my vote.

Plus, as I’m sure I’ve posted before, Elections Canada goes out of its way to make it as easy a possible to prove one’s identity. I have no idea exactly how many potential voters can’t prove their identity to Elections Canada’s satisfaction, but looking at the list of acceptable IDs the number can’t be very large.

[bobot]

@Chronos

You want to know how you verify voters when you’re not trying to disenfranchise people? When I lived in Montana, voters were in fact required to provide proof of identity. Acceptable proofs included any government-issued ID (including not just drivers’ licenses but also things like welfare cards), or the voter registration card that was mailed out free to all voters, or any utility bill from the past month. Show one of those, sign on the line, and pick up your ballot.

Or if you want to be really thorough about it, you could do the ink-on-the-thumb thing we use when we’re running an election in a former dictatorship. If anyone suggested we do that here, too, well, I’d think they were being a bit silly, but if that’s what they needed for peace of mind, I’d go along with it.

I wonder why the people pushing for voter ID laws never suggest either of these alternatives?

(hypothetically…) Because it might not supress the democratic vote?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@The_Lurker_Above

Plus, as I’m sure I’ve posted before, Elections Canada goes out of its way to make it as easy a possible to prove one’s identity. I have no idea exactly how many potential voters can’t prove their identity to Elections Canada’s satisfaction, but looking at the list of acceptable IDs the number can’t be very large.

Do the Americans have any professional bureaucrats who do nothing but process and update voter lists? Maybe they should get some, because ours do a pretty good job.

[John_Mace]

@Chronos

Or if you want to be really thorough about it, you could do the ink-on-the-thumb thing we use when we’re running an election in a former dictatorship. If anyone suggested we do that here, too, well, I’d think they were being a bit silly, but if that’s what they needed for peace of mind, I’d go along with it.

I wonder why the people pushing for voter ID laws never suggest either of these alternatives?

The ink on the finger is a low tech way of preventing people from voting more than once, but it does nothing to identify that a voter is legally registered to vote. It is, if you wish, orthogonal to voter ID laws.

[BrainGlutton]

From The Voting Wars, by election lawyer Richard Hasen:

If I wanted to steal an election using voter impersonation fraud, I’d have to recruit a bunch of people to vote at the polling place using fake names. But they might not follow my directions. They might go into the polling place and not vote, they might vote under their own names, or they might vote for someone other than the candidate I paid them to vote for. This is the problem with any elections crime scheme based on voters using a secret ballot in a polling place.

But impersonation fraud represents an even greater hurdle. There are two ways to impersonate. One way would be to have people claim to be somebody else listed on the rolls. This is obviously problematic: If I send you in and direct you to claim to be Thor Hearne, who I know is registered to vote in that precinct, but Thor has already showed up to vote, you would be immediately subject to arrest.

You might be arrested even if Thor has not yet voted. In many precincts, poll workers are local individuals. One of them could well know him. “You’re not Thor” could also land you in jail. Moreover, many places do a signature match. Your signature would not match Thor’s.

The other way of doing impersonation fraud would be for me to get you to fill out a registration card with a false name and address. The voter registration card would be turned into election officials, who will check the name and address against existing records. These forms have to be turned in weeks before the election. I’d then need to recruit people to go to the polling place on Election Day and falsely claim to be a person on the list. And federal law already provides that first-time voters must supply a driver’s license or Social Security number if they register first to vote by mail – or provide identification to election officials when they vote for the first time.

Either gambit requires assembling enough coconspirators to affect the outcome of the election. Could I do it, even in a very small election, without getting caught? We don’t have a single recent example of anyone even attempting it. Why try such a risky scheme when absentee ballots are so much safer and more reliable? [N.B.: Hasen is not talking about fraudulent absentee ballots but bought absentee ballots; as he notes elsewhere in the book, absentee voting is the one area where vote-buying still happens sometimes, because, unlike voting a secret ballot on e-day, it leaves a paper trail which the buyer can check if he has the right inside connections, or simply check in person by watching the voter fill out the ballot.]

The chance that impersonation fraud can effect a presidential, statewide, or even large city or county election is miniscule. Missouri had about four million registered voters in the 2000s. The idea that impersonation fraud could be done on a large-enough scale to affect the outcome of any major race, without detection by government officials, is ludicrous.

Now, if you want a real solution to America’s real problems with election administration (those problems being 1) the system is hyperfederalized, every county doing things its own way, and 2) the system is partisan, election officials being elected officials rather than civil servants), Hasen provides it:

We need nonpartisan, professional election administration at the federal, state and local levels, with more power in the hands of the federal government than state government and power power in the hands of the states than the localities. Neutral election officials, whose allegiance is not to a political party or candidate but to a fair election system, should be the norm.

<snip>

“Let a thousand flowers bloom” should not be the model for how we run our elections. We should follow the path of other mature democracies. A nonpartisan election czar or panel of three should run our national elections, with political insulation and a long term of service. The czar should impose uniformity, competence, and discipline on the election process.

If used on a national scale, the president would make the nomination subject to a two-thirds or three-fourths confirmation vote by both houses of Congress. The large supermajority requirement would ensure that the person picked is a consensus candidate who cannot be easily manipulated by political forces. The election czar (or committee) should have the power to impose uniform standards on federal elections. Ideally, a voter should be able to walk into any polling place, anywhere in the country, and see the same voting equipment and the same ballot format. Election boards with balanced representation from both parties should have the power to monitor operations conducted by the nonpartisan official, with ample protection for either party to call for grand jury investigations if there are allegations of partisanship or incompetence.

<snip>

There should be uniform standards for how to deal with absentee ballots and provisional ballots. Election laws should be updated so that the rules are clear and established in advance. States should conduct periodic election law audits to ensure that laws are up to date, clear, and match current voting technology. Uniformity not only minimizes the grounds for a potential postelection contest but benefits all voters by ensuring a fair process.

The registration rolls should be uniform as well. The federal government should be in the business of registering all voters, paying all costs associated with registration and voter verification. Registration should begin when someone graduates from high school (or drops out), and voter registration should follow citizens wherever they go with a unique voter identification number (which would differ from a Social Security number). The government should provide a voter identification card to each voter, but voters lacking identification would have the choice of using a thumprint or other means too verify their identity.

Votging machine hardware and software should have government approval. The source code and hardware should undergo rigtorous independent testing and full disclosure to government officials before rollout and implementation. Manufacturers should not be able to frustrate efforts to improve security by claiming that the source code is proprietary.

Forget everything you just read. None of it is going to happen. Despite the Florida debacle, states have not moved toward greater non-partisan election administration. Florida did get rid of its partisan elected secretary of state. But now the position is appointed by the governor, without the supermajority confirmation requirement that would keep the office apolitical. Neither Democrats nor Republicans see much benefit in giving up the chance to have one of their own as the state’s chief election officer.

More generally, the Voting Wars have shown the parties the virtue of manipulating election rules for their advantage. The parties have a vested interest in keeping some partisan control. And local election officials fight for power against state officials, while both fight against federal control. There’s no strong lobby for change. The window for change following 2000 closed quickly with the half-measure of the Help America Vote Act.

Nor is there support for mandatory, government-paid national voter registration with a voter identification – much less with biometric information like a fingerprint. When I first proposed such a system, in 2005, I managed the nearly impossible feat of uniting the two political parties around an idea. Unfortunately, they were united in opposition. Republicans oppose federal control, oppose another government program, and oppose government control on principle. Democrats oppose voter identification requirements, even if the government pays for it and goes out and registers voters, even though a large majority of the public supports such identification. Civil libertarians don’t like the government having your thumbprint. Barring a much worse meltdown than 2000, nationalizing our elections won’t happen in our lifetime.

[The_Lurker_Above]

@Bryan_Ekers

Do the Americans have any professional bureaucrats who do nothing but process and update voter lists? Maybe they should get some, because ours do a pretty good job.

Yeah, and so far as I can tell from working a couple of elections for them they really, really care (in a completely non-partisan way) about getting the vote out, and accurately counted.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Yes, we’ve harnessed the power of obsessive-compulsive nerds.

[drewtwo99]

Do what Oregon (and now Washington State, maybe?) does. Vote by mail. This fixes a whole shitload of election problems. In-person voting should honestly just be illegal at this point. There’s no reason for it. Voting by mail fixes the whole problem of showing voter ID, etc.

For those of you who don’t trust the postal service or whatever other issues you might have with voting by mail, they have all been thoroughly debunked.

[emacknight]

@John_Mace

It is, if you wish, orthogonal to voter ID laws.

Did someone give you a word of the day calendar for your birthday?

[Bricker]

@aNewLeaf

Nearly all voter-qualification laws have been struck down by the same way for the same reason.

Which is the point I was trying to make with the post.

Are you aware that the Supreme Court ruled in Crawford v. Marion County that requiring photo ID for voting does NOT offend the Constitution and upheld the law?

[John_Mace]

@emacknight

Did someone give you a word of the day calendar for your birthday?

Chronos is a physicist. He’ll understand exactly what that means.

[septimus]

@historicprops

I am not taking a position on this issue: I am genuinely trying to find a legitimate argument against such laws, because I have yet to see any real potential harm. I look forward to respectful discussion and debate on this issue, and welcome opinions from all points on the spectrum.

My response is sincere; I hope you treat it as respectful. It won’t answer your question, which has been answered in dozens of threads already.

My question to you is: Do you think that the many hundreds of thousands of Americans and hundreds of Dopers who believed such laws would suppress minority voters are misinformed? Do you think that the Republican politicians who supported such laws, in some cases admitting almost in as many words that the purpose was to suppress Democrat-leaning votes, were misinformed?

Or are you confident, because of the opposition, that there was harm in such laws as proposed recently, but just want to have the harm explained to you more clearly?

I hope this doesn’t sound snarky. My question is very sincere. If you think that the hundreds of Dopers, etc. are all misinformed, I’ll ask your opinion on how this misinformation came about, and whether it served some political purpose.

[BrainGlutton]

@septimus

My question to you is: Do you think that the many hundreds of thousands of Americans and hundreds of Dopers who believed such laws would suppress minority voters are misinformed? Do you think that the Republican politicians who supported such laws, in some cases admitting almost in as many words that the purpose was to suppress Democrat-leaning votes, were misinformed?

From The Voting Wars, by election lawyer Richard L. Hasen:

What really motivates the Fraudulent Fraud Squad? [American Spectator journalist Matthew] Vadum, one of the squad’s newest members, inadvertently revealed what underlay his attack on ACORN and related groups. Registering the poor to vote, he contended, is “un-American,” like “giving burglary tools to criminals.” It is profoundly anti-social and un-American to empower nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country – which is exactly why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote.

In other words, we should once again make wealth a condition of voting. Apparently this is no longer the kind of odious idea one should keep to oneself.

Hasen’s not making that up, either. Vadum’s article.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@Bryan_Ekers

It’s in the application, and the U.S. (well, parts of it) is already known for electoral shenanigans, though in recent years it’s mostly been gerrymandering. Suspicion that this opens new avenues for abuse is not unreasonable.

Particularly in light of the fact that there is no bipartisan push to solve the ostensible problem. One conclusion that might be drawn from that is that there isn’t a problem so big as to be crying out for a solution.

@emacknight

Did someone give you a word of the day calendar for your birthday?

I’ve never understood why if A says to B “you used a word I don’t understand,” this is an insult to B.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hershele_Ostropoler

Particularly in light of the fact that there is no bipartisan push to solve the ostensible problem. One conclusion that might be drawn from that is that there isn’t a problem so big as to be crying out for a solution.

Or that even if there is there would be a “bipartisan push” for a solution. See post #28, and especially the last three paragraphs.

[Siam_Sam]

@John_Mace

And yet many (most?) developed country in the world has some form of voter ID law. This is not rocket science, and such laws can easily be crafted so that an ID is easy to get.

There’s the rub. Make the ID easy to get. My Thai wife has to show ID when she votes, and there’s no question she won’t have some form, because having at least a national ID card is required by law.

[Mister_Rik]

@Drum_God

To get one in Texas, you need a birth certificate. In Texas, this costs $24.

Serious question: Do most people actually not possess their birth certificate? I have right here in my possession the very certificate the hospital in Yuma, AZ issued to my parents in 1966 when I was born. (And I’ve had to present it a couple times - once when I got my first driver’s license, and once when I lost my Social Security card.)