That’s certainly a widely repeated prediction.
But this article says:
Since Voter ID laws have existed for many years, I’m curious about something. I know you can show me dozens of links to the Brennan Center predicting that thousands will lose their vote, but can you show me studies of actual turnout where thousands actually DID lose it?
Some are, surely. Others who use the “both sides do it, tut tut” dodge are trying to avoid the work and thought involved in actually gathering and evaluating factual information, while allowing themselves to preen over their own self-perceived purity.
Here, it’s pretty clear - one side’s prescriptions do *not *address a real problem of any significance, ignore the problems that are known and significant, and significantly restrict participation in democracy, while the other side is after both accuracy and inclusiveness.
If Illinois held a popular vote as to whether Illinois voters should be required to present a valid photo ID before they could vote,
AND
Illinois voter photo ID’s were available, free of charge to those who did not already possess a valid Driver License or State photo ID,
I would vote in favor of Illinois having a voter ID law.
The voter fraud / voter ID issue is much more of a political rhetoric issue on both sides than a real issue.
The incidence of voter fraud is exaggerated. Just as the incidence of voter disenfranchisement due to ID requirements is exaggerated.
For some people this is a die on your sword issue rather than tacking the real societal problems we have.
Merely having free voter ID, however, doesn’t address the entire problem.
To obtain that free ID, you need to (1) have the necessary supporting documents, which probably are not free, and (2) have access to the office that issues such IDs.
What do you do if you don’t have a copy of your birth certificate and were not born in Illinois? What if the state in which you were born has no record (e.g., because you were born before such certificates were required to be filed), or the document is misspelled or misfiled? What if through disability you are not able to get to the office?
Is it acceptable to disenfranchise people merely because they are exceptions to the rule?
It must be obvious to you that Illinois state officials are much too stupid to effectively deal with the difficulties you describe. I think that even Illinois state officials can officially grant exceptions, or otherwise solve the problems.
No legal voter would be disenfranchised but some might have to expend a little energy. I think it’s well worth their effort.
I would vote in favor of Illinois having a voter ID law.
If he voted twice, using the same ID, wouldn’t the ID number pop up twice in the computers? That ought to stand out.
Of course, he could obtain two separate voter registrations using different personal IDs… A birth certificate for one, and a passport for another.
Not to mention taking a day off work, forgoing a paycheck while spending money on public transportation, to go to the DMV and wait in lines all day. For the poor or disabled this can be a huge challenge.
Then doing it all over again because you forgot to bring a form and the website is outdated or inaccessible to you. Possibly including taking a day off work, paying for transportation, paying for your birth certificate or whatever other form you’re missing, waiting until that form is mailed to you, and then doing it all yet again. People with flex time, paid vacation, reliable transportation, reasonable employers and money to blow on bullshit fees don’t seem to know what a privilege that all is.
I’m an Illinois voter and I’m going to cancel out your vote, doorhinge. 
If the state of Georgia doesn’t have my birth certificate, what are you expecting the state of Illinois to do about it? If Illinois can say, “well, no worries, we’ll just exempt you,” then what was the point of the law in the first place?
And getting a birth certificate seventy years or more after the fact takes more than “a little energy.” It might well require multiple thousands of dollars. The state of Illinois sure isn’t going to spend the money, but if I haven’t got it to spend, then what?
CurtC’s comment was about a college kid registering at both his parents’ home and at college. Unless those two locations are in the same voting jurisdiction (county or state, depending on state laws), they are not on the same computer system, nor are there any direct computer links. There’s no way to do real-time checking.
Now there are some initiatives to compare voter registration lists across state lines, but those efforts are hampered by differing database structures and differing amounts of information. (For example, some states use a default 1/1/1900 if they didn’t have a precise birthdate; other states leave it blank, and still others mandate a birthdate for the registration to be valid. Some states include Jr/Sr/III as part of the name; others don’t.) Such initiatives can toss out possible matches, but they can’t definitively prove anything. See, e.g., reports about Interstate Crosscheck, which pumped out five million “possible duplicates” but almost no referrals for prosecution, much less convictions, because it turns out there are a lot of people who share common names.
Moreover, voter registration doesn’t tell you that the person actually attempted to vote in both places. That is, if you are registered to vote in Kansas, vote here for several elections, and then move to and register in Florida, your name may well remain on the Kansas rolls for several years even if you never return to Kansas and never make any further efforts to vote in the Sunflower State.
Within the same jurisdiction, the example of using a birth certificate and a passport won’t (usually) work, because almost all common voter registration computer systems will flag two entries with the same name, same address, same date of birth, etc.
Of course voter ID could be done in a perfectly fair and acceptable form. If that is what they wanted to do. They could also engage in a vigorous voter registration effort to get more people on the voting rolls. They could also make an effort to ensure that all voters have equal access to voting places and voting machines. Of course they could do those things.
If that is what they wanted to do. It wasn’t. So, they didn’t.
And yet voter ID laws are common throughout the industrialized world. How do you think people in other countries manage to deal with such heavy burdens?
Many countries in the industrialized world adopted national ID schemes a generation or more ago, with a centralized infrastructure for their issuance. France, e.g., has issued and required such documents since 1940; Germany started a few years earlier. We don’t have a comparable document in the U.S., and we have very little political support for one. Instead, we have a patchwork of documents issued by a plethora of local and state authorities, each with their own rules and practices.
The point was getting the ID into the hands of the voter so that the voter can identify himself at the polls. A person ineligible to vote is going to want to shy away from the exception process, because that would only make him MORE memorable.
Then you’re granted the exception.
And – really? Thousands of dollars?
Was that hyperbole? Or are you literally making the claim?
How do you know? Is there data on frequency of, and reasons for, exceptions granted in states with voter ID? Honest question; no snark intended.
Heck, if you’re not going to do it right (by which I mean set up a government agency specifically to compile and maintain voter rolls), at least half-ass it rationally. Everyone who was previously registered to vote gets grandfathered in and the new rules apply only to new registrants - freshly naturalized citizens or people who’ve recently turned 18 or indeed anyone seeking to vote for the first time.
Assuming maintaining the integrity of the voting process while preserving its accessibility was the goal all along, of course.
No, the voter ID laws just require that you show a photo ID, so the person at the poll can verify that you’re the guy whose name is on their list. If they’re going to be comparing between voting districts, they should compare the registration lists. Nothing about your friend’s situation could be affected by voter ID laws.
I think a point that gets lost is that there are two steps to voting: registering beforehand, and then showing up at the polls. You’d need all these documents to register in the first place that you would need to get a photo ID.
If someone is not registered to vote, then registering is a burden by itself, and getting a photo ID should be very simple if you have to pull all that stuff together.
The people most likely to be affected by voter ID laws are people who are already registered but don’t have a photo ID. The largest portion of the people who don’t now have a photo ID aren’t already registered to vote, from what I have read. So here in Texas, it’s just a small fraction of the several hundred thousand people who don’t have a photo ID who the laws would affect. Still, that’s a lot of people to maliciously prevent from voting. And I say “maliciously” because there are no good, valid reasons to pass these laws in the first place. Their passage has been nothing but malice.
By that logic, though, a person ineligible to vote is going to want to shy away from voting or registering to vote in the first place, because that draws attention.
If I claim that I was born in Georgia but they don’t have a record, it could be that I’m telling the truth, or that I was really born in Alabama and don’t want you to know, or that I was really born in the Bahamas and have never been a citizen. Which one is true, and how can the state of Illinois establish it?
If the state of Illinois takes me at my word, in essence handing out exemptions like candy, I’m not particularly memorable and the purpose of photo ID has largely been thwarted. Alternatively, the state can be hard-nosed, which leads right back to disenfranchising eligible voters.
No, I’m being quite serious. Depending on your personal situation (such as which relatives are still alive and what documents are in your possession) and which state is involved, obtained a delayed birth certificate might be a simple matter of mailing some papers and a check for $25 or so to the proper office, or it might require hiring a private investigator to track down witnesses and documents, filing a petition with the probate or district court (which often means hiring an attorney – you should know about the billing practices of that profession 
), and/or other expensive steps.
For example, my state (Kansas) would really really like you to present two affidavits from “persons at least five years older than you who have actual knowledge of the date and place of your birth”–they suggest your parents, older siblings, and/or the attending physician or midwife. If you are now in your seventies, the odds that the attending physician is still around to be giving affidavits is, um, slim.
Absent the affidavits, you can submit additional documents, such as census records, an original birth announcement from the newspaper, certified copies of school records, a baptismal certificate or church cradle roll record, military records, voter’s registration records, a passport, etc.–you’ll need at least four, and the more the better. Some of these might be quick and easy to find, some might not even exist, and some may require a fair bit of sleuthing to locate (what did happen to the records of that little country school from 1935? where did they put the cradle roll when the church dissolved in 1947?).
In Arizona, they’d like to see an “independent factual document” created before your tenth birthday by a third party showing your name and date/place of birth, such as school or church records, AND an “independent factual document” proving your mother was in Arizona at the time of your birth (they suggest a utility bill or income tax papers) AND additional supporting evidence. How much would it cost to come up with those?
Large amounts of text removed.
I don’t know how much it would cost. Why don’t you show us, with cites, since you claimed in was in the “multiple thousands” range?
Of course, even if cases like this are rare, they’re probably about as rare as voter fraud, so at best the solution is a net break-even.