The Controversy over Voter ID
Voter ID laws are solutions looking
for a problem. Lately, I have heard a
lot of talking about Voter Fraud, Voter ID’s, documentation and consistency in
voting hours. Many people struggle to understand why voter ID is such a big
deal; everyone should have a driver’s license, Military ID or State ID.
“What’s
the big deal”?
Who doesn’t have an ID and why:
Here are just a few Voters that don’t
have the required ID: women with name changes, senior citizens who are either
immobile or don’t drive anymore, college kids who are on the move, minorities who don’t have required documents
(Black, Hispanic, Asians, Latinos), young women, people with licenses
suspended, people who can’t afford to get the $20 birth certificate and then
find time to get to the Motor Vehicle dept. (In my town, DMV has one day a week
that it is open. Some rural towns have to drive more than a few hours to get to
a DMV.), no time to wait for birth certificate before an election, and people
who have just moved.
“This group of voters does tend to
vote Democratic”.
How many people are affected that don’t have an ID:
It’s estimated that 20 million
people may not have an ID.
Why is implementing voter ID so important to some people:
The majority of Republicans and
Conservatives, despite evidence to the contrary, believe the lower the voter turnout
the better their chances of winning, or so they believe. Voter ID will significantly
reduce voter turnout. Currently, the Conservatives have devised a media
blitz to voters by asserting there is rampant voter fraud.
“Voter
ID will significantly reduce voter turnout”.
In largely Republican-controlled
legislatures, many new laws have been proposed, and in some states actually
enacted laws that now do require photo identification at polling places in
order for citizens to cast their ballots. The GOP claims that these laws are
primarily enacted to prevent fraud when the demography of the 20 million
citizens who don't have photo identification is largely composed of people who
are poorer, more minority and the more immobile elderly than the rest of the
population, a group whose voting history is strongly Democratic but which would
have the greatest difficulty in obtaining proper identification.
Is there rampant voter fraud:
One of the best studies on
the subject was conducted by Justin Levitt of the New York University
Law
School (2012). Its conclusion is simple: allegations of widespread voter
fraud are greatly exaggerated.
“Many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without
much fire…Most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless—and that of the few
allegations remaining, most reveal election irregularities and other forms of
election misconduct, rather than fraud by individual voters”.
Democratic
claims Voter fraud includes: inaccurate and discriminatory removal from the
registration rolls via partisan list purging; discarding Democratic
registration forms by Republican-oriented deputy registration outreach
organizations; intimidation at the polls by Republican poll watchers and
robo-calls to Democratic and minority groups threatening dire legal
consequences if one votes and is ineligible and, in at least one documented
case, telling Democrats that they should vote on the day after election day.
Among
the number of Republican charges of Voter fraud include: fraudulent
registrations, non-citizens and other ineligibles voting, voting in the names
of the dead and moved but still on the registration rolls voting twice, and the
accusation that we are not counting absentee votes particularly of the military
and other Americans residing outside the United States who tend to vote
Republican.
Neither
set of partisan claims are totally without foundation, however few instances occur
each election year. The cumulative effect of these fraud claims as seen and
heard through the megaphone of the mass media is to undermine citizen faith in
the integrity of the electoral process.
“…the
cumulative effect of these fraud claims
as seen and heard through the megaphone of the mass media is to undermine
citizen faith in the integrity of the electoral process”.
Why is Voter ID not a good thing or is it even legal?
Requiring ID has the affect of
disenfranchising those voters who do not have the correct documentation (20
million people). We all have a fundamental right to vote and are to be
protected from the whim of the Government to take away that right. Requiring an
ID infringes on qualified electors right to vote and acts as a poll tax for
anyone needing to pay any amount in obtaining that documentation; i.e. a birth
certificate costs approximately $20. The non use of Poll taxes (used to keep
minorities from voting at all) were sited and reinforced in the 24th,
15th, and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
It is not surprising that in largely
Republican-controlled legislatures, many new laws have been proposed, and in
some states actually enacted laws that would require photo identification at
polling places in order for citizens to cast their ballots. The GOP claims that
these laws are primarily enacted to prevent fraud when the demography of the 20
million citizens who don't have photo identification is largely composed of
people who are poorer, more minority and the more immobile elderly than the
rest of the population, a group whose voting history is strongly Democratic but
which would have the greatest difficulty in obtaining proper identification.
However, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3
decision in an opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens,
affirmed the constitutionality of requiring photo identification at the polls. The
law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity
and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens. It
is settled law, at this point.
“Voting
should be made easier not harder”.
In my opinion a law that requires
the citizen to pay for either the ID or the necessary documentation for it or
both puts a burden on those least able to afford it and amounts to an illegal
poll tax on the right to vote (obviously, this is the reason I never became a
supreme court judge). Since the majority of those who now do not have photo
identification are those who don't drive (or else they would have such
identification), offering these IDs only at the Departments of Motor Vehicles
or other remote places, as some laws do, makes it difficult for the non-driving
majority to get them. These features will undermine turnout and influence
result. I believe they should continue to be attacked and challenged in the
courts or at the very least have ways to help these people. Voting should be made easier not harder.
Does showing a Voter ID solve the problems with potential
voter fraud in the United States?
No, citizens must qualify themselves
via registration in order to vote, many find it difficult to do so; there are
an estimated 50 million citizens who are not registered and thus can't/don’t vote.
No, Voter ID will not solve the inaccuracy of those registered to vote. These can't
be maintained accurately for a variety of reasons, there are an estimated 20
million names on those rolls who should not to be there. The first is a
national disgrace; the second an invitation to potential abuse.
”In
almost every other advanced democracy, government is responsible for
determining who is qualified; all the citizen needs to do is vote. In the land of the free, proving that you
are qualified to vote puts a burden on all citizens”.
No, Voter ID’s, in themselves, will
not prevent Voter Fraud. There are a
number of reasons where potential Voter fraud could occur, there has to be a
number of solutions that considers all of the issues.
In
almost every other advanced democracy, government is responsible for
determining who is qualified; all the citizen needs to do is vote. In the land
of the free, proving that you are qualified to vote puts a burden on all citizens.
During major elections, it seems like there are more
accusations of Voter Fraud, is this true?
Yes, during each biennial national
election and with increasing intensity, the nation has become witness to the
spectacle of competing partisan claims: the Republicans claiming fraud and
potential fraud, the Democrats claiming real and potential voter intimidation
and suppression, with each party at the ready with poll watchers and
litigators, costing millions, to protect their interests at the polling places
and in court. This really leads me to wonder what our values are as a nation
when we spend this kind of money for these potential fraudulent claims. (And we worry about a few measly dollars for
food stamps for our poor, which just disgusts me. Sorry, couldn’t resist a ‘not on subject’ comment.)
Neither set of partisan claims are
totally without foundation, however few instances occur each election year.
The need to keep, maintain and
update lists of those registered as the primary way of protecting the integrity
of the voting process and ensuring that only those qualified to vote are
allowed to do so is failing miserably. Despite the best efforts of those who
carry out the voting execution, it is flawed with manual aspects which counts
on integrity and could encourage fraud, even with the tremendous amount of human
effort. There are no cross checks on current information, leaving the system
open to fraud.
“The
need to keep, maintain and update lists of those registered as the primary way
of protecting the integrity of the voting process and ensuring that only those
qualified to vote are allowed to do so is failing miserably”.
What are the problems with our current voter process:
“The
problems with our voter process include:
lost potential turnout, possibility of electoral fraud, too difficult
for voters to cast ballots, keeping up with current voter laws is difficult,
lines too long, lost citizen faith in the integrity of the election process and
inaccurate voter register information”.
What are the Solutions to improving our voter process:
One of the best solutions I’ve heard
(from John Wasik through his contribution to Forbes magazine) which will
maximize potential turnout, eliminate virtually all possibility of electoral
fraud, make it profoundly easier for citizens to cast their ballots and which
restores citizen faith in the integrity of the election process, is the use of
a biometric identification card. The United States needs to adopt a mandatory,
government-provided, distributed and paid for standard biometric identification
card and system. Under such a system, every citizen (including the 50 million
who are now unregistered) would be automatically enfranchised. There would be
no invalid names on registration lists. With the exception of vote buying and
election official chicanery, electoral fraud would cease to exist. On Election
Day, in order to vote, all the citizen would need to do is show up at the polls (or maybe their
computers?), have their ID biometric card scanned and matched. This kind of
system has been implemented with great success in Mexico and is about to be put
into operation in India.
But there are two principal
objections to such a system which are cost and fear of its abuse to invade
citizens' privacy. The cost would be an estimated $14 billion. However, the biggest barrier and what usually
trumps everything else is the issue of potential invasion of privacy. (Government does not have a long history of
implementing big systems.) If you think about it, with the Internet and other
sophisticated forms of technology, Americans really have little privacy left.
“This
system, despite its hefty upfront costs, would provide lasting savings,
accuracy, simplicity and increased faith in the voting process”.
Such a card could also serve as
one's driver's license and automobile registration, social security and
Medicare card, selective service registration, secure home and automobile keys
and, perhaps, as in Mexico, one's unique and protected credit card(s). It would
also serve to make compatible and interoperable the many identification systems
in place, not to mention ending the army of election day litigants, allow you
to vote on your own computer or a variety of different “mail” boxes, just to
name a few of the possible uses. This
system, despite its hefty upfront costs, would provide lasting savings,
accuracy, simplicity and increased faith in the voting process.
“On
Election Day, in order to vote, all the citizen would need to do is show up at the polls (or maybe their
computers?), have their ID biometric card scanned and matched”.
Other constructive uses of such a
card could be: Help to improve national defense and homeland security – knowing
who is in the country and who is coming and going to and from it, delete the
requirement and cost to do a nationwide census allowing you to have an accurate
and timely national census, enhanced and more accurate criminal prosecution or
exoneration, a secure repository for individual medical records, and a
reduction (elimination) of identity theft.
If a biometric ID card and system
were adopted, it would not substantially erode what privacy remains and there
would be ways of mitigating citizen concerns.
It is possible for the readers of the
IDs to be programmed in such a way as too take only the information for that
particular use and have statutory limitations on its use and criminal penalties
for exceeding those strictures.
Nothing of this magnitude is likely
to be enacted until it has been thoroughly vetted by a high-level, bipartisan
leadership commission with distinguished representation from each aspect of
society that would be affected by such a change. Such a commission would need
to explore the desirability, feasibility, applicability, interoperability,
implementation and cost of such a system, along with the best ways to protect
against abuse of the information gathered. America moves slowly, too slowly if you ask
me.
The positive potential and benefits of
such a card system is very high and its potential downside risk very low. At a
time when states are enacting the wrong type of ID requirements for voting and
putting the responsibility on the citizen, instead of the government, various
branches of government are implementing many different and incompatible ID
systems, the time to consider a different approach and a new paradigm is now.
Mexico has had this biometric card
in place for several years, what could we learn from them? Mexicans who have this card and I have
personally discussed their thoughts on this, say they love it and it simplifies
their life!
Think about it - having only one
card to carry around is very practical.
No drivers license, no credit card, no Health card, no prescription drug
card, the card could do a variety of things to make our lives and voting
experience easier. You should not have
to prove you are qualified to vote, the government should tell you you’re
qualified.
I hope I’ve been able to help in understanding
of the issues in Voter ID, and shine a light on fraud. I hope I was able to
describe why this issue is such a big deal. And lastly, I hope that even if you
don’t agree with me, the article gave you pause to think.
Mariann Anderson
”the
time to consider a different approach and a new paradigm is now”.
