# Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971 "2012-05-24T17:25:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/1 "2012-05-24T17:25:47Z")
I realize that we live in a post-bipartisan world, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Voter ID laws come up, they are always introduced passed by Republican-controlled state houses at the objections of the Democratic minorities. Does this really mean that Democrats are all for election fraud? (I joke but there are some [who actually believe this](https://www.google.com/search?q=democrats+want+election+fraud&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7ADFA_en).) When one hears about election fraud in the news, it is almost always having to do with voter registration issues (which is not the same thing as voter fraud). The few times where corruption is found, it has to do with local candidates buying votes, something which Voter ID laws do not address. When you ask proponents for evidence of rampant voter fraud which Voter ID laws would address, [they admit that they have none](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/13/388169/pa-goper-admits-theres-no-evidence-that-voter-id-laws-are-needed-but-hes-ramming-one-through-anyway/). Supporters of Voter ID laws like to say “you need an ID to \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_” and list one of a handful of things, but voting is not like those things. It’s a fundamental right, unlike anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/2 "2012-05-24T17:35:06Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I realize that we live in a post-bipartisan world, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that when Voter ID laws come up, they are always introduced passed by Republican-controlled state houses at the objections of the Democratic minorities. Democrat-controlled state houses that passed Voter ID laws: Delaware and Rhode Island. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/3 "2012-05-24T18:05:29Z")
The OP presents a [False Dilemma](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). In my view, voter ID laws are useful not to stop existing voter fraud nor to disenfranchise any voters, but to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the voting system. I notice the OP failed to list that as a possible reason for support. Why is that? Didn’t think of it? ---
**Author:** ![Laudenum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7993a0/32.png) [@Laudenum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Laudenum)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/4 "2012-05-24T18:14:40Z")
I’ve found the debates on here a little puzzling to be honest. Posters who oppose voting controls keep saying that there is no evidence of voter fraud, but it seems to me that if you don’t have any real checks against voter fraud then you will never catch it. I know (in Ireland of course) of quite a few cases of multiple voting, but if you went by our official figures it would be deemed non-existant. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/5 "2012-05-24T18:18:26Z")
Of course it is an attempt to subvert the democratic process and prevent Democratic votes from being cast. If they didn’t manufacture outrage over “the integrity of the election process” they’d have no way to pull of their con game. We can’t legislate something based on the false beliefs of a small but lout minority. Voter ID laws may make sense to you if you believe that ACORN was an evil organization that stole the last election for Obama. But we can’t make laws based on what people misbelieve. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/6 "2012-05-24T20:26:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, voter ID laws are useful not to stop existing voter fraud nor to disenfranchise any voters, but to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the voting system. Yet these laws also undermine the confidence that many others have in the integrity of the voting system. Isn’t that funny! More on that at the end of my post… Meanwhile, back at the facts - we like facts here, right? Because if something done in the name of “public confidence” is based on supposition instead of, dare I say, the straight dope, that would be a lousy reason to do it, right? - they show that they are addressing fraud which has yet in our history to occur (which you concede) but they also ARE disenfranchising voters, [and there is evidence for this](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/). To be sure, even if you feel that the number of disenfranchised voters are exaggerated (apparently provided by people who are all in favor of voter fraud?), they’re not zero. I think everyone would agree that these laws will cause _some_ people to become disenfranchised, even if we can debate on how much the _some_ is. So you have to ask yourself: Is the security that a type of voter fraud that has yet to occur at all is somewhat less likely to occur for the first time (these laws still don’t make duplitous voting impossible as anyone who has ever had to check IDs at bars in college towns could tell you) worth disenfranchising this _x_-number of voters? My feeling is I could possibly be convinced that some disenfranchising of voters might be a necessary evil if it meant stopping some obvious fraud, but that disenfranchising even one voter in the name of addressing a problem that doesn’t exist is shameful. As for this public confidence, I suggest you read [“Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements”](http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/publications/vote-fraud-eye-beholder-role-public-opinion-challenge-voter-identification-require) from the Harvard Law Review. It will show you that, just as those who will be disenfranchised by these laws skew a certain way, so does public confidence. So, bearing in mind that even your “publc confidence” reasoning is shardply divided, got anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/7 "2012-05-24T20:40:54Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Yet these laws also undermine the confidence that many others have in the integrity of the voting system. Isn’t that funny! More on that at the end of my post… > > Meanwhile, back at the facts - we like facts here, right? Because if something done in the name of “public confidence” is based on supposition instead of, dare I say, the straight dope, that would be a lousy reason to do it, right? - they show that they are addressing fraud which has yet in our history to occur (which you concede) but they also ARE disenfranchising voters, [and there is evidence for this](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/). > > To be sure, even if you feel that the number of disenfranchised voters are exaggerated (apparently provided by people who are all in favor of voter fraud?), they’re not zero. I think everyone would agree that these laws will cause _some_ people to become disenfranchised, even if we can debate on how much the _some_ is. > > So you have to ask yourself: Is the security that a type of voter fraud that has yet to occur at all is somewhat less likely to occur for the first time (these laws still don’t make duplitous voting impossible as anyone who has ever had to check IDs at bars in college towns could tell you) worth disenfranchising this _x_-number of voters? > > My feeling is I could possibly be convinced that some disenfranchising of voters might be a necessary evil if it meant stopping some obvious fraud, but that disenfranchising even one voter in the name of addressing a problem that doesn’t exist is shameful. > > As for this public confidence, I suggest you read [“Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements”](http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/publications/vote-fraud-eye-beholder-role-public-opinion-challenge-voter-identification-require) from the Harvard Law Review. It will show you that, just as those who will be disenfranchised by these laws skew a certain way, so does public confidence. > > So, bearing in mind that even your “publc confidence” reasoning is shardply divided, got anything else? No. But I don’t agree you’ve shown anything that contradicts the concern about public confidence. I agree that there is, as you say, a non-zero population of voters that will be so discommoded by the requirement to obtain voter ID that they will not vote. And I regard it as an acceptable consequence of being able to say that when people cast votes, we have a system in place that verifies the voter’s identity. You disagree with that weighing, of course, and you’re welcome to hold that opinion, but there’s nothing that makes your disagreement objectively correct, any more than my agreement is objectively correct. This is why we live in a democratic republic. We have agreed upon a system to decide what laws to enact, knowing that not all citizens will favor the same approaches. In this case, the elected representatives of various states have agreed with me, and passed laws, representing the will of the people. In other states, representatives have agreed with you, and rejected such laws. That’s how our system works. As an aside, I didn’t see you acknowledge the point that in two states, Democratically-controlled state houses have passed voter ID laws. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/8 "2012-05-24T20:53:20Z")
> [@Laudenum](#): > > Posters who oppose voting controls keep saying that there is no evidence of voter fraud, but it seems to me that if you don’t have any real checks against voter fraud then you will never catch it. This assumes there are no checks as it is. There are many rules and regulations pertaining to elections (aren’t Republicans supposed to be against regulations?) as it is, and they often will detect fraud when it occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/9 "2012-05-24T21:01:48Z")
It’s about as “subtle” as playing “I got your nose” - the fiction only impressive to children and dumb people. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/10 "2012-05-24T21:07:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Good. Glad you came around. > [@](#): > > But I don’t agree you’ve shown anything that contradicts the concern about public confidence. So you didn’t read the Harvard Law Review piece I linked? > [@](#): > > I agree that there is, as you say, a non-zero population of voters that will be so discommoded by the requirement to obtain voter ID that they will not vote. And I regard it as an acceptable consequence of being able to say that when people cast votes, we have a system in place that verifies the voter’s identity. So you think it’s fine to disenfranchise x-number of voters in order to address a problem that doesn’t exist. And this is supposed to make public confidence in elections better. Am I correct? > [@](#): > > As an aside, I didn’t see you acknowledge the point that in two states, Democratically-controlled state houses have passed voter ID laws. As for Rhode Island: > [@](#): > > “This isn’t a strict photo ID law like the others being debated across the country,” says Scott Westbrook Simpson, press secretary for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an advocacy group that opposes photo ID bills. “This is not at all indicative of bipartisan support for these other bills, like the ones in Indiana or Georgia. Particularly, this law allows folks without a photo ID to still vote by provisional ballot.” > > [Governing](http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/rhode-island-voter-ID-law-game-changer.html) The story also comes up with theories as to why a Blue state such as Rhode Island would do something atypical. And that’s because it is atypical. This legistation is not nearly as likely to disenfranchise someone because they won’t get turned away at the polls. As for Delaware: > [@](#): > > **ID Needed for Voter Registration** > > Identification is not necessary to register to vote if you use the National Voter Registration Form. However, when registering with the department of elections or at an alternate approved location, current identification is required. The identification must include current and valid photo ID that shows full name and address, examples include: > [ul] > [li]Current utility bill[/li][li]Bank statement[/li][li]Government check[/li][li]Paycheck[/li][li]Other government document that shows full name and address[/li][/ul] > **ID Needed for Voting** > > Identification is required ONLY if you have registered using the National Voter Registration Form and thus did not supply it originally.In that case, the voter must present current identification which includes a current and valid photo ID that shows full name and address. If a photo ID cannot be produced, a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or other government document that shows full name and address will be accepted. Identification is also required the first time you vote in person or with an in person absentee ballot. > > [Vote411.org](http://www.vote411.org/bystateresult.php?state=DE) So the Delaware law also doesn’t demand a photo ID and instead allows for many other forms of identification. So the Democratic-led states with these laws put them in effect with various checks to avoid disenfranchising voters. Possibly you can see the difference in how they are written? ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/11 "2012-05-24T21:08:27Z")
Does anyone have any evidence that Republicans actually desire to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters? Ive never seen any, yet it’s an article of faith among some. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_stamos_left_ear/32/3198_2.png) [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Stamos_Left_Ear)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/12 "2012-05-24T21:21:54Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Does anyone have any evidence that Republicans actually desire to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters? Ive never seen any, yet it’s an article of faith among some. Has any Republican came out and said “This will disenfranchise people who would vote for my opponent?” Not that I know of (but it would be funny if they did). Will it have that effect? Yes, even though some may disagree on how much of an effect. Are they aware of this? They should be. I kind of think that Occam’s Razor should be applied here. YMMV. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/13 "2012-05-25T05:38:18Z")
[Florida Congressman Demands Gov. Rick Scott ‘Immediately Suspend’ Voter Purge.](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/23/489511/exclusive-florida-congressman-demands-gov-rick-scott-immediately-suspend-voter-purge/) > [@](#): > > Florida Congressman Ted Deutch (D) told ThinkProgress today that Gov. Rick Scott was engaging in a “blatant attempt to supress voter turnout.” Scott is currently involved in a massive effort to purge up to 180,000 from the voting rolls. The list, purportedly of non-citizens, has proven unreliable. Earlier this week, Seminole County Supervisor of Elections Mike Ertel, a Republican, posted a picture on Twitter of a voter on the list falsely identified as ineligible, with his passport. Go Deutch! Let’s not have [what happened in 2000](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Voter_roll_purge_in_the_2000_Florida_election) happen ever again. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/14 "2012-05-25T05:40:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, voter ID laws are useful not to stop existing voter fraud nor to disenfranchise any voters, but to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the voting system. :rolleyes: It took you four years, but you’ve finally topped [this bullshit.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10346755#post10346755) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/15 "2012-05-25T05:51:55Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Has any Republican came out and said “This will disenfranchise people who would vote for my opponent?” Not that I know of (but it would be funny if they did). Does [Paul Weyrich](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-gop-war-on-voting-20110830) count? > [@](#): > > Republicans have long tried to drive Democratic voters away from the polls. “I don’t want everybody to vote,” the influential conservative activist Paul Weyrich told a gathering of evangelical leaders in 1980. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.” But since the 2010 election, thanks to a conservative advocacy group founded by Weyrich, the GOP’s effort to disrupt voting rights has been more widespread and effective than ever. In a systematic campaign orchestrated by the American Legislative Exchange Council – and funded in part by David and Charles Koch, the billionaire brothers who bankrolled the Tea Party – 38 states introduced legislation this year [2011] designed to impede voters at every step of the electoral process. > > All told, a dozen states have approved new obstacles to voting. Kansas and Alabama now require would-be voters to provide proof of citizenship before registering. Florida and Texas made it harder for groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters. Maine repealed Election Day voter registration, which had been on the books since 1973. Five states – Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia – cut short their early voting periods. Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters. And six states controlled by Republican governors and legislatures – Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin – will require voters to produce a government-issued ID before casting ballots. More than 10 percent of U.S. citizens lack such identification, and the numbers are even higher among constituencies that traditionally lean Democratic – including 18 percent of young voters and 25 percent of African-Americans. > > Taken together, such measures could significantly dampen the Democratic turnout next year [2012] – perhaps enough to shift the outcome in favor of the GOP. “One of the most pervasive political movements going on outside Washington today is the disciplined, passionate, determined effort of Republican governors and legislators to keep most of you from voting next time,” Bill Clinton told a group of student activists in July. “Why is all of this going on? This is not rocket science. They are trying to make the 2012 electorate look more like the 2010 electorate than the 2008 electorate” – a reference to the dominance of the Tea Party last year, compared to the millions of students and minorities who turned out for Obama. “There has never been in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the Jim Crow burdens on voting, the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/16 "2012-05-25T05:58:08Z")
And it hasn’t stopped. Brentin Mock: [“True the Vote” Still Out to Screw the Vote.](http://www.thenation.com/blog/167648/true-vote-still-out-screw-vote) Not only that, [some jurisdictions are raising challenges to the Voting Rights Act.](http://www.thenation.com/blog/168048/why-we-still-need-voting-rights-act) ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/17 "2012-05-25T09:28:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > maintain public confidence in the integrity of the voting system. I have a better way, that doesn’t disenfranchise anyone. It’s an anti-voting-fraud rock. Place one rock in each polling station and it will prevent voting fraud. It also keeps away the Boogie Man, he’s scaaaary! ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/18 "2012-05-25T11:38:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, voter ID laws are useful not to stop existing voter fraud nor to disenfranchise any voters, but to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the voting system. My state, Pennsylvania, will spent millions of dollars to implement this. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center gave an estimate of $11,000,000. [http://pennbpc.org/voter-mandates-costly-taxpayer](http://pennbpc.org/voter-mandates-costly-taxpayer) Granted, it’s a left-leaning organization. Even so, whatever the actual figure is, it will cost millions of dollars. This while school districts budgets are being cut, among other things. Why is voter confidence suddenly so all-fired important that we have to spend money bolstering it now, during hard economic times? ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/19 "2012-05-25T11:56:03Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Has any Republican came out and said “This will disenfranchise people who would vote for my opponent?” Some have complained that it will disenfranchise certain Republican voters, so they are admitting that it does disenfranchise people. [http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/12/462977/pennsylvania-voter-id-amish-voters/?mobile=nc](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/04/12/462977/pennsylvania-voter-id-amish-voters/?mobile=nc) > [@](#): > > State Sen. Mike Folmer (R) supported Pennsylvania’s voter ID law but has concerns about how it will impact Amish voters. > In March, Pennsylvania became the first state in 2012 to enact a voter ID law. It could have a disastrous impact on the 700,000 Pennsylvanians who currently lack photo ID, but it also harm those who still need an ID to vote but object to having their picture taken for religious reasons, like the Amish and Mennonite communities. They can use a nonphoto ID to vote, but only after completing an interrogation about their faith, according to the Associated Press If you read the article you’ll see that the complaint is that they have to jump through hoops to get the exemption and that many will feel it’s too much trouble and won’t bother. You’ll also see that most Amish who vote, vote Republican. I have to believe that there are more non-Amish than Amish that will have to jump through hoops to prove that they can vote, and I have to believe that the poor and minorities (who tend to vote Democratic) will on average have less resources to aid them in jumping those hoops. Personally, I don’t want to disenfranchise anyone, the Amish included. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/20 "2012-05-25T13:13:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, voter ID laws are useful not to stop existing voter fraud nor to disenfranchise any voters, but to maintain public confidence in the integrity of the voting system. > > I notice the OP failed to list that as a possible reason for support. Why is that? Didn’t think of it? Oh, perhaps because that argument tends to come from the same faction that found ways to rationalize _Bush v. Gore_, perhaps the hugest violation of the integrity of the voting system in our history. And because that position is indistinguishable from the one that they’d reach on the basis of naked partisan advantage, and that every other single position they take on the subject is similarly aligned with that basis. And that the problem they purport to solve, a lack of confidence in the integrity of the voting system, is a problem _they themselves_ have drummed up. And that their purported solution to the problem they have invented involves reducing participation in democracy, \*against \*our nation’s ideals. That pretty much cover it for ya? :dubious: Now go try to fool someone else. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=2)