# Requiring photo ID to vote **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667 "2011-04-08T15:15:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/41 "2011-04-08T17:48:14Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > The difference I see is that the Indiana law provided a mechanism for voting without an ID - you just had to show up and sign a statement saying you couldn’t afford one within 10 days of the election. > > My question would be strictly this: does the TN law have a way for me to vote _without paying money_ if I am healthy, young, and able to drive? Yes – same as Indiana’s solution. You can cast a provisional ballot. You don’t even have to show up within 10 days afterward. ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/42 "2011-04-08T17:48:32Z")
> [@Uncle\_Jocko](#): > > The Iowa legislature discussed the same kind of voter ID measure this year. Even though it did include a provision to provide IDs free of charge, it didn’t advance to a vote. The fact that these types of measures are springing up at this juncture is interesting, I think. > > This type of law wouldn’t affect me at all. I already have a driver’s license. Practically everybody I know has a license. Showing an ID to vote would not be a burden to me or those folks. But … might it be a burden to someone else? Even if the state provided free IDs, there would be some number of residents who wouldn’t bother/wouldn’t know to go get them … and that increases the burden of voting for those people. Which would, inevitably, decrease the likelihood of them voting at all. Who would benefit in such a case? > > As **CitizenPained** and **Folicin** mention, what is the problem we are trying to solve here? Our esteemed legislators mention the threat of widespread voter fraud … which hasn’t happened and isn’t happening. Not sure what the deep dread of such an event could be. While the spoken goal is “Stop Voter Fraud!” is the unspoken, true goal one of depressing turnout among groups who tend to vote Democratic? > > I may be reaching a bit too far (I’m sure many of our legislators are truly concerned about voter fraud, and as I said, showing an ID would be no big deal for the huge majority of Americans) … but I do find it more than a tad interesting that the **biggest boosters of this legislation have been Republicans**. Take that as you will. Iowa considered such a law? I can’t imagine it got far. I’m from Iowa and voting is just so…so…freaking…American…communal…and…I don’t even have the words! Voter fraud in Iowa? Pshaw! This is a place with 99 precincts and caucuses! I had a list of every registered voter in my county (Linn) precinct (a neighborhood in Cedar Rapids) and voter fraud never even crossed my mind. If Republican legislators create fear in Iowa and enact laws to “protect” the citizens from voter fraud that doesn’t exist, then Republicans in other states with high minority/low income populations can cite Iowa as a reasonable precedent to potentially disenfranchise voters. Republicans have had a hard time suppressing mail in ballots, so this is just another tactic. :o Can you guys imagine a National Voter ID system? The costs, the potential errors, the misuse of such a card… ---
**Author:** ![Farmer\_Jane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Farmer\_Jane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farmer_Jane)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/43 "2011-04-08T17:50:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > SImilar justifications were upheld in _Crawford_, so I am glad it’s your favorite. Bricker, is this correct? [ul] [li]Scenario One: State requires a photo I.D. to vote - not a poll tax[/li][li]Scenario Two: State requires a voter reg form with photo that is not free - poll tax[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/44 "2011-04-08T17:51:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > SImilar justifications were upheld in _Crawford_, so I am glad it’s your favorite. I think you are confusing whether something is constitutional with whether it is a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/45 "2011-04-08T17:54:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So the Crawford Court considered the burden associated with spending a small amount of money, and concluded that the issue is not the money, but whether the restriction is related to the reliability of the election process or not. “…evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious and satisfy the standard set forth in Harper.” Then wouldn’t there be a burden to show that the requirements are necessary to “protect the inegrity and reliability of the electoral process”? That case has not been made here. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/46 "2011-04-08T17:54:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, that’s true, and that may indeed be a turning point for this law. But I kinda doubt it, because the attack in _Crawford_ pointed out that in order to get the free ID, voters had to produce their birth certificate, which cost money. So the Crawford Court considered the burden associated with spending a small amount of money, and concluded that the issue is not the money, but whether the restriction is related to the reliability of the election process or not. “…evenhanded restrictions that protect the integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself” are not invidious and satisfy the standard set forth in Harper.” Seems odd that the court does not require the state to show it has a problem that needs fixing before placing a roadblock in the way of voting. Just saying they can imagine a problem is not the same thing as having a problem. Are there even other states that allow voting without an ID having real fraud problems such that Tennessee or Indiana could claim they were just trying to nip a problem in the bud before it grew? Did Indiana or does Tennessee have a notable problem with voting fraud they need to address? It is clear the real purpose of this bill is to disenfranchise people and not protect the integrity of a voting system that did not have a problem in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/47 "2011-04-08T17:55:00Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Any ideas on the bizarre exemption for nursing home residents? What’s the purpose of that? Nursing home residents, as a class, tend not to have a drivers license or other government ID, and vote in the nursing home in which they live. So a lot of states that have voter ID requirements exempt people who live in nursing homes, figuring that it would be an undue burden to them. This bill, too, seems to allow people without photo IDs to cast a provisional ballot, subject to review by election officials. Does anybody know how that would work? What standard of review would the election officials use? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/48 "2011-04-08T17:57:58Z")
> [@CitizenPained](#): > > Bricker, is this correct? > > [ul] > [li]Scenario One: State requires a photo I.D. to vote - not a poll tax[/li][li]Scenario Two: State requires a voter reg form with photo that is not free - poll tax[/li][/ul] It depends on the cost, but the reasoning is that in Harper, the tax was unrelated to voter qualfication, and so even a small charge to vote was unconstitutional. But a state has a legitimate interest in making sure that the elections are secure and only qualified voters vote, so an indirect small charge against the voter that does that is permissible. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/49 "2011-04-08T18:03:56Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Then wouldn’t there be a burden to show that the requirements are necessary to “protect the inegrity and reliability of the electoral process”? That case has not been made here. No, because generally, the courts operate on the assumption of constitutionality. The logic is that the legislature wouldn’t pass something without a good reason, and wouldn’t pass something they knew to be unconstitutional. So, except when the legislature passes something that’s prima facie unconstitutional, (like Alabama’s “Slavery’s Back” bill or South Dakota’s “Lutheran Church Establishment Act”), the burden is on the people claiming unconstitutionality. They have to show that the requirements are unduly burdensome. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/50 "2011-04-08T18:15:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It depends on the cost, but the reasoning is that in Harper, the tax was unrelated to voter qualfication, and so even a small charge to vote was unconstitutional. But a state has a legitimate interest in making sure that the elections are secure and only qualified voters vote, so an indirect small charge against the voter that does that is permissible. I don’t know if that’s true, though. Harper said that an act “violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard.” and > [@](#): > > The fact that most voters already possess a valid driver’s license, or some other form of acceptable identification, would not save the statute under our reasoning in Harper, if the State required voters to pay a tax or a fee to obtain a new photo identification. But just as other States provide free voter registration cards, the photo identification cards issued by Indiana’s BMV are also free. For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. So what distinguished Crawford was that there wasn’t a charge for the photo identification cards in Indiana. If there had been, it might not have met that standard. What makes Crawford relevant to the Tennessee statute, though, is: > [@](#): > > The severity of that burden [on classes of people who either can’t or won’t get a photo id, ie. elderly people born out of state, people with religious objections, etc-CA] is, of course, mitigated by the fact that, if eligible, voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will ultimately be counted. To do so, however, they must travel to the circuit court clerk’s office within 10 days to execute the required affidavit. It is unlikely that such a requirement would pose a constitutional problem unless it is wholly unjustified. And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek in this litigation. Since the Tennessee law doesn’t even require people who can’t meet the standard to execute the required affidavit within 10 days of their vote, apparently, it seems to fit under Crawford. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/51 "2011-04-08T18:28:26Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Since the Tennessee law doesn’t even require people who can’t meet the standard to execute the required affidavit within 10 days of their vote, apparently, it seems to fit under Crawford. This is what I don’t understand. If I show up with no ID and cast a provisional ballot what happens next? Is my vote counted? Even if I don’t show up later with an ID? If this is the case (which would obviously circumvent the burden on the voter), then doesn’t this reduce the state’s interest in avoiding fraud? Put another way, a law that requires ID but counts all provisional ballots does nothing to reduce fraud, and therefore would fail the balancing test even though it places minimal burdens on the voter. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/52 "2011-04-08T18:35:37Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > So what distinguished Crawford was that there wasn’t a charge for the photo identification cards in Indiana. If there had been, it might not have met that standard. I agree. But since the record in Crawford disclose that the cost of getting a brith certificate was put at issue, and the fact that a birth certificate was necessary to get the ID, it seems to me that Crawford has explored this area. But you’re right – a court could decide that the cost of a birth certificate is more attenuated from the process, and thus acceptable, where the cost directly for the ID is not. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/53 "2011-04-08T18:37:01Z")
> [@Jas09](#): > > This is what I don’t understand. > > If I show up with no ID and cast a provisional ballot what happens next? Is my vote counted? Even if I don’t show up later with an ID? Well, that’s what I want to find out…how they deal with provisional ballots. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/54 "2011-04-08T18:44:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But you’re right – a court could decide that the cost of a birth certificate is more attenuated from the process, and thus acceptable, where the cost directly for the ID is not. Especially because Stevens seems to recognize a situation where getting a birth certificate could provide an undue burden (see footnote 20) > [@](#): > > While it is true that obtaining a birth certificate carries with it a financial cost, the record does not provide even a rough estimate of how many indigent voters lack copies of their birth certificates. Supposition based on extensive Internet research is not an adequate substitute for admissible evidence subject to cross-examination in constitutional adjudication. One wonders what would have happened if the record of the case had shown that a majority of indigent voters lacked copies of their birth certificate. I suggest the possibility that Justice Stevens would have been more sympathetic to Justice Souter’s argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/55 "2011-04-08T18:45:36Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, that’s what I want to find out…how they deal with provisional ballots. In attempting to get the answer to this question, I read the whole bill. Should have done that earlier – shame on me. I discovered this provision: > [@](#): > > (f) A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without > payment of a fee or who has a religious objection to being photographed shall be > required to execute an affidavit of identity on a form provided by the county election > commission and then shall be allowed to vote. The affidavit shall state that: > (1) The person executing the affidavit is the same individual who is > casting the ballot; and > (2) The affiant is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification > without paying a fee or has a religious objection to being photographed. So it seems that the law DOES contain an exception that lets someone vote if they cannot afford the ID fee. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/56 "2011-04-08T18:51:02Z")
Then that would seem to take care of that objection. I’ve always liked that, by the way…the assumption that someone willing to cast a fraudulent vote would shy away from falsely filing an affidavit. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/57 "2011-04-08T18:58:56Z")
Yup, if that’s in there then it likely meets constitutional muster considering past cases. I would still perhaps make an argument that allowing a non-ID’ed voter to sign and vote does little to prevent actual voter fraud, and thus shifts the balance described in the Indiana case. Even if it is constitutional, it’s still bad law, IMO, and directly aimed at discouraging poor voters from casting ballots by making it more difficult for those without readily-available photo ID. It also creates potential for poll workers to deny voters their right to a provisional ballot (which is not unheard of). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/58 "2011-04-08T19:10:26Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Then that would seem to take care of that objection. I’ve always liked that, by the way…the assumption that someone willing to cast a fraudulent vote would shy away from falsely filing an affidavit. It makes sense. The fraudulent vote is one among thousands, millions, and unless there’s some reason to go back and unravel it, it’s invisible. And even then, trying to go back and figure out who was guilty of pretending to be Fred Smith is a near-impossible task. BUt when the guy’s executing an affidavit right there, it’s much more noticeable, and much scarier for a miscreant to do. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/59 "2011-04-08T19:11:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So it seems that the law DOES contain an exception that lets someone vote if they cannot afford the ID fee. Okay, it’s not unconstitutional. It’s still pointless. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2011, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667/60 "2011-04-08T19:19:01Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Okay, it’s not unconstitutional. It’s still pointless. 😃 Well, the legislature disagrees, and I’m afraid that the tie between you and them goes to them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/requiring-photo-id-to-vote/577667.md?page=4)