I’ve worked elections in Canada. If for some reason you can’t prove your address using any of the quoted pieces of ‘ID’, you can have someone else registered in the riding swear that you live there and vote based on that. Elections Canada really wants it to be possible for absolutely everyone eligible to be able to vote.
Did you have to show ID, or did you merely comply with a request to show ID?
Yes, and people without photo ID are disproportionately elderly. A lot of that stuff on the “but you can’t do ______ without ID!” lists* is stuff they already did back when things were less strict. Which can cause problems today, now that we expect people to use their birth certificate name on all paperwork, until and unless they get it officially changed and receive paperwork proving this. Tilda Jones who has a birth certificate for Matilda Smith (and no marriage license to prove that she married Mr. Jones, because you didn’t need that back then) will have a hard time getting photo ID today, unless she got it back when rules were less strict and has been coasting on renewals ever since.
*And, invariably, some of the stuff on these lists is wrong. You don’t need ID to receive food stamps, for example, except in the very loosest sense where a piece of mail is ID. And only one member of the household has to do this. Never mind the inclusion of luxuries like air travel.
Here in Baja Canada, AKA the People’s Republic of Minnesota, we have a system described by a universally respected authority as “lax”. If you can arrive at the polling place with any sort of mail addressed to yourself…a utility bill, for instance…and a registered voter from the appropriate district…and said registered voter will attest under penalty of perjury that said voter knows you personally and verifies that you are who you claim to be…
You vote. You are registered, and you vote. Period. Full stop.
Simply put, it works. We even had a sooper dooper close election, between Al Franken and what’s-his-face, the dearly forgotten. Much high level shouting and raging, much recounting conducted in an agonizingly slow but ruthlessly transparent fashion. With, as you might expect, many suggestions of electoral skulduggery on behalf of the left.
Result: it appears to have worked. Mr Franken was smart enough, good enough, and, gosh darn it! elected.
But again, WHY is that necessary? Why can’t you just tell them your address, they check the book or whatever, and then you vote? I understand they want your address to make sure you are voting in the right place, but why can’t you just tell them? Why do you need to PROVE it with something, or have someone else SWEAR that you live there? Seems unnecessary to me.
When I voted in Maryland, I didn’t have to prove my address with any sort of documentation when I went to vote.
Come to think of it, my dad was born at home in the 1930s. I don’t know if he even has an “original birth certificate”. I suspect back then the only record of your birth might be a notation in the front of the family Bible. He does have a driver’s license and a SS card, but if he had to produce a birth certificate, he might be SOL.
If it’s not an emergency, the hospital is not required to treat anyone.
(I believe they ask for ID as a cross-check against the insurance info, so they can get paid.)
It isn’t strictly necessary but most people feel a little more confident in the system if some token effort at least is made to assure the person voting is legit and at the right polling station.
And I’m pretty sure more people would feel a little more confident in the system if the figure more commonly touted by the “other side” was the real one (44 fraudulent votes in 1 billion) rather than the fake one (over 3 million fraudulent votes in the last election). Or, more generally, if the side whining about the fake issue of “elections might be stolen by forms of voter fraud that photo ID can prevent” wasn’t also the one pushing exactly your point. See, if people knew how rare this was, and thought through how asinine of a crime it is to commit voter fraud in this particular manner, and weren’t constantly lied to about the need for these laws, we probably wouldn’t have the problem that people aren’t confident in the system.
Most people feel a LOT more confident in the system if no serious effort is made to prevent them from voting legitimately.
Do you feel that way about the Canadian ID requirements?
No, I think people would generally think some identification is perfectly reasonable even without the Republican campaign.
Do you feel they’re equivalent situations, the facts notwithstanding?
Well no because the more recent voter id laws in the states are far more restrictive. But that’s why I asked; would a state voter ID law that was similar to the Canadian one strike you as an attempt to disenfranchise?
If it included a similar effort to get everyone an ID, then no. But that isn’t actually happening anywhere, is it? And still, no ID law would address the only *real *problems anyone’s identified, the misuse of absentee ballots and the occasional false/double/erroneous registration.
Did you hear of anyone worrying about “voter confidence” until the Republicans were called out on their attempt to partially reinstate Jim Crow, which is what it is? Are they otherwise known for wanting to fix problems that don’t even exist? Have you heard of any attempt to actually address the known real problems that they haven’t stalled or pooh-poohed?
I kinda doubt it. But even if that were true, the correct response would be to inform people, not misinform them, then reward the misinformation with legislature.
You’re acting like you are talking to someone defending the Republican strategies. I do not.
And Canadians are quite comfortable with some identity/address verification without any Republican disinformation campaign so your doubt is misplaced.
There’s probably a path for someone in his situation. Or in my hypothetical situation. But it might involve a lot more effort. And lots of people just give up when told that the only path for them involves a lot more effort, which makes them easy targets for scolds who will use it as evidence that the real problem is laziness and not the rules. The ability to deal effectively with bureaucratic hurdles is a form of privilege. Requiring people to assertively press for answers, research the rules, understand and fill out a bunch of paperwork correctly, etc., is going to leave people behind, and unfortunately the people who are comfortable with that stuff don’t realize it’s not an innate skill.
The use of the word privilege in any argument means you’ve already lost. IMHO, of course.
Canadians require ID to vote because the then Conservative government brought in the requirement (almost certainly as part of the US Republican-influenced policies they were pursuing), also without any real problems having been identified other than people voting for the wrong party. However, unlike the US, Canadians have both a Constitutional right to vote, and an independent non-political election administration, so the actual ID requirements are defined as inclusively as possible, in order not to prevent a legitimate voter (citizen, over 17, and not the head or deputy head of Elections Canada) from voting. In addition to the long list of acceptable IDs posted by CarnalK above, there are additional special case options - people in homeless shelters or nursing homes can be vouched for by a staff member, for example.