BlogHer - May I See Your Voter ID Please? - Comments

great info

lilmommythatcould — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:22:57 -0500

In WI you can bring a utility bill or ID- which I am fine with. I am sure if someone wanted to steal my ID and vote they will find a way. I am hard pressed to believe someone who works hard enough to steal my idenity first choice would be to vote. A joke.

I think the problem isn't what is required to vote but the fact that IN lawmakers were focusing so heavily on something that wasn't really a problem in the first place.

I'm sorry for not being clear

Kim Pearson — Sat, 03 May 2008 21:21:14 -0500

Hi Diana,

Actually, I was responding indirectly to your question in my reply -- I should have been more explicit. My response is two -fold.

The first is that the evidence doesn't suggest that voter fraud takes place on a scale that requires a major commitment of resources in response. I would be wary of the of the costs associated with your suggestion.

I also wonder how the coordination would work between the federal post office and the state DMVs. Or are you suggesting the creation of some other kind of ID program? If you create a special voter ID, you have the same coordination problem -- elections are managed through secretaries of state. And who foots the cost for this new ID system?

Finally, I'm not suggesting that our leaders can't address more than one problem. I'm just saying that resources are finite at both the state and federal level. If we are going to spend money on a problem, I want it to be a real problem, not a hypothetical problem.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Absolutely!

Diana — Sat, 03 May 2008 20:46:34 -0500

Kim, of course we need to be addressing the issue of malfunctioning voting machines, and in my opinion the larger issue of voting machine security for this upcoming and future elections. Since when, however is it imperative that our country focus on only one issue at a time?

If your presidential candidate of choice stood in front of you and said; "Listen, I'd love to fix the economy and the war but I can only address one issue at a time." would you still vote for him or her? I certainly hope not!

Voting machine malfunctioning is being addressed, perhaps not at the scale you and I would like to see it be addressed but the link you posted to the potential lawsuit against Diebold (let's not even get into that company ;) ) is proof that there are measures being taken. And, yes, trust me I agree those measures are not large enough given how close we are to another election but I still do not see these issues as being "either, or". I say we address both!

Unfortunately, we cannot anticipate when and how machines will malfunction, as humans we simply cannot do it. Not in any sort of consistent fashion anyway - it's a major downfall to the continued technological advancement of our society, and that makes the voting machine issue that much harder (although no less worthy of our attention). We can however anticipate how our fellow humans may "malfunction" and in so doing take advantage of a broken system. The answer is simpler in many ways, so yes change may come about quicker. It doesn't mean this cause wasn't worthy of our attention from the get-go as well.

All that said, you didn't address the question I raised in my first response and I'd love to know, as a person potentially affected, what you think of that solution to the opposition. If the ID is as easily accessible as the polls is the requirement still an unfair an infringement?

Why fight hypothetical problems when we have real ones?

Kim Pearson — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:18:27 -0500

Diana, you said,

Yes, the current rate of fraud is low, extremely so (although not zero). But must we wait for a problem to arise to prevent it?

It makes little sense to focus on the hypothetical problem of voter fraud when there are documented problems such as electronic voting machine malfunctions . In Cleveland Ohio, problems with Diebold touch screens were so severe that the county scrapped their machines last fall and is now suing the manufacturer of $21 million, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

Of course, the 2004 election demonstrates why it's absolutely critical that we have a reliable vote count in such states as Ohio this fall. That would be a much more productive use of our resources than mandating voter IDs. I would expect that fair-minded people would agree across the political spectrum.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Respectfully, Of course, I have to disagree.

Diana — Sat, 03 May 2008 18:48:33 -0500

I'm not a republican but I'll play devil's advocate for a moment here.

A picture ID proves citizenship and identity. Money, in any denomination proves only financial standing which, unlike the two former, has nothing to do with the right to vote. The comparison isn't even remotely related to the issue. We could sit here and debate ad baculum all evening long but it's not going to contribute any meaningful change for those that this determination could, indeed affect. And I don't deny that this could discourage some people from voting.

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision, it makes sense that our government reserve the right to ensure that only those entitled to a vote be allowed to cast one. Especially in light of how many illegal aliens do live here. I would like to think we're not so far removed from Bleeding Kansas and all the ensued that we have not completely forgotten that illegal voting is an issue. If the woman who registered her dog had absentee voted for him in elections she could have successfully cast two ballots in each election; hers and her dog's. Luckily she was out to make a statement not exploit the loop hole(s) in the system she saw.

I am as much an advocate for making voting accessible to all American Citizens as any die hard Democrat. What I don't understand is the strenuous energy that is being put into fighting that which can otherwise be dealt with through compromise. Why not focus our efforts on making the ID more accesible? This would protect the right to vote against any future attempt to exploit our system illegally and ensure it doesn't disenfranchise any of our citizens that may have a hard time making their way to a DMV or other office that would normally issue ID. There is a post office in almost every town in America, even most of the smallest. Perhaps there should be a stipulation that allows states to demand photo ID at the polls only if all state Post Offices offer photo ID services. Allow citizens to apply for and obtain through their local Post Office a photo ID for no charge that can be used at the polls.

Yes, the current rate of fraud is low, extremely so (although not zero). But must we wait for a problem to arise to prevent it? Do we wait for our children to become violent to teach them kindness? Shouldn't our focus be on making forward thinking changes that all Amercans can live with, Democrat, Republican or otherwise?

Count me among the people who might have been hurt by this

Kim Pearson — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:10:15 -0500

When I first registered to vote, I was young and able-bodied, and had a driver's license. I surrendered my license voluntarily as my disability convinced me I could no longer drive safely, and I didn't want to pay insurance on a license that I was not ever going to be able to use again.

However, it took a few years before I was able to arrange to be driven to a DMV office 20 minutes away where I could get a new photo non-driver ID, for a variety of reasons There is no public transportation from here to there. and I don't have the flexibility to use paratransit (you have to allow a 40-minute window before and after the time you need to be picked up -- a dealbreaker for someone with a job and single-parenting responsibilities.) So I had to wait until I could get someone to take off from work (and lose money) at a time when I could take off from work to sit in the DMV office and get the ID. My polling place is around the corner; I have lived in the same house for the last five years.

Just one example of how someone can be disenfranchised because the rules were changed to "solve" a non-existent problem.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

If there is no fraud ...

PunditMom — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:50:59 -0500

... what is there to crack down on?? I think we're missing the underlying issue here -- the GOP wants to find a legitimate way to exclude the votes of low-income, elderly and minority voters -- voters who vote Democratic more often than not.

Show me the rampant voter ID fraud, and then we can talk about whether this is necessary.

What if instead of ID, the price of admission to vote was $1? It's a slippery slope that could really endanger our system.

For most people ...

PunditMom — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:48:27 -0500

... it is no problem. But as the editorial cartoon I saw today about this showed -- two able bodied people jumping the voter ID track & field hurdle, and an elderly person with a can who couldn't make it over.

Driver's licenses and passports expire. People without much access to money and transportation fall through the cracks on so many things in this society -- why should voting be one of them.

If one dog gets to vote so millions of legitimate votes can be cast and counted, I can live with that.

I Can't Say I'm Surprised

Diana — Sat, 03 May 2008 16:14:30 -0500

After the woman who successfully registered her dog to vote in Washington State before the last election I can't say as though I'm surprised at the desire to crack down as a preventative measure.

I am a Hoosier and I am NOT

no_I_am_zoe — Sat, 03 May 2008 15:31:06 -0500

I am a Hoosier and I am NOT a republican, and I see nothing wrong with having to provide some form photo ID in order to vote.

When you register to vote you have to show some sort of valid photo ID or provide a birth certificate and a recent bill in your name with proof of address. If you're registered to vote you'd have to have photo ID or a birth certificate, so it hardly seems like undue or extrodinary burden to me. Also, in our state, every time you move you have to go change your voter registration. Which means you once again have to make a trip to the court house or DMV, show a photo ID and proof of address to change your voter registration. If you didn't change your registraion you couldn't vote. I would argue that that is an ufair burden to put on us working stiffs who would have to take time off work to go change our voter registration.

If you somehow no longer have a valid ID or a birth cerficate between the time you register to vote and election day, you can always vote absentee by mail, which does not require that you show ID.

The state is providing free ID's for people, all you have to do is get to a lisence branch. It probably doesn't cost any more to get to the DMV than it would to get to the polling place. Any major city in Indiana has a bus system, and any small city or town is small enough to walk in.

Perhaps I am wrong and there a large contingent of voters running around my town with out photo ID, but I don't how you get by in society with out one.

I will also say that the advantage of the photo ID law is that we can now vote in any precinct in our voting district. That is of great benifit to large number of voters

There are many groups in our town at least, who make sure that if you need to get registered to vote or get to the polls, they find a way to get people there. I'm sure they are working to make sure people also get IDs if they don't have them.

Just because there never has been a recorded case of voter fraud, does not mean that there never will be.

With the exception of the point about the difficulty it could present for transgendered indivuals, who will still run into problems even with out the new law if they are registered under there birth name, I don't see this as discrimination. If you are a responsible and productive enough member of society to vote, then you should also have a photo ID.

That's just my two cents worth.

Thanks, Lisa!

PunditMom — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:40:08 -0500

I'm glad you liked this one! Let's hope we don't have to worry too much about our ID's at the polling places!

Fantastic wrap-up of this Supreme Court decision

Lisa Stone — Fri, 02 May 2008 11:07:48 -0500

Wonderful work PunditMom -- I'm going to print this and keep it.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder
Surfette

May I See Your Voter ID Please?

PunditMom — Fri, 02 May 2008 08:23:03 -0500

If you don't have photo identification when you go to vote, but you're registered to vote, should you be turned away? Some Republicans have long advocated that the answer to that question should be 'yes.' I've lived in a lot of places in my life, especially when I was still a wandering TV reporter. I have never been asked for a piece of photo ID before I voted.

But this week, the Supreme Court of the United States took the GOP's side, saying that there is a valid state interest in preserving the integrity of the electoral process of Indiana by requiring a photo ID before one is allowed to vote. Has there been rampant voter fraud in Indiana that I missed? I knew I should have checked with one of my TV news producer friends there!

For a little legal background on the Supreme Court case in a nutshell, I give you New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse:

"The Indiana law, adopted by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2005 without a single Democratic vote, is regarded as the strictest in the country. It requires a voter to present a photograph as part of an unexpired document issued either by Indiana or the federal government, a requirement that in most cases can be satisfied only by a current driver’s license or a passport. The state’s motor vehicle agency provides a free photo ID card for people who do not drive, but obtaining it requires a “primary document” like an original birth certificate or a passport."

Never mind that there has never been a reported case of voter fraud at the polls in Indiana.
When was the last time you read a story about someone trying to impersonate a registered voter at the polls anywhere?

Yeah, I thought so.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter addresses this faux-issue in his dissent, as quoted by Ann Althouse:

"Without a shred of evidence that in-person voter impersonation is a problem in [Indiana], much less a crisis, Indiana has adopted one of the most restrictive photo identification requirements in the country....

"[The law] targets the poor and the weak.... [B]eing poor has nothing to do with being qualified to vote.... [T]he onus of the Indiana law is illegitimate just because it correlates with no state interest so well as it does with the object of deterring poorer residents from exercising the franchise."

Pauline Park at The Visible Vote '08 sees a different potential impact from this decision:

" ... [T]he combination of a lack of explicit protections from discrimination with a law requiring photo identification to vote could lead to the disenfranchisement of many transgendered voters in the Hoosier State as well as in the other states with voter ID laws but no non-discrimination laws explicitly including gender identity or expression."

And New Black Woman wonders just how far this law really is from a poll tax:

"Before I started voting, I was under the impression that it was required to show your ID when you go and vote. Maybe that's because of the state I'm in. However, I'm inclined to think that this will hinder the political process. Historically, as I was taught, politicians have always wanted to limit who was allowed to vote, thus limiting who had 'control' over the system. Maybe voter ID laws are another way to limit voter participation."

11D goes one step further, wondering if we aren't on a slippery slope toward bringing back voter literacy tests. Reformed Chicks Blabbing, however, think all 50 states should have a voter ID law in place and wonder why this is a problem.

Indiana voters can get a "free" photo ID at the Bureau of Motor Vehicles. But you still have to have money to get the initial documents, like certified birth certificates, to prove you are who you say you are. And you still have to have access to transportation or $4 a gallon to buy gas to put in the car. And you still have to take time off from work while the Bureau of Motor Vehicles is open.

Those things all cost money, in one form or another. And that's why there is a disparate impact on certain segments of Americans who can't just pop out over lunch to get a photo ID.

For a great perspective on where the true voting problems are in our process, read The Fraud of Voter ID Laws, by Amanda Terkel at The American Prospect:

"Voter ID laws ... affect more than an 'infinitesimal' number of Americans and are more than a 'minor inconvenience.' According to the federal government, there are as many as 21 million voting-age Americans without driver's licenses. In Indiana, 13 percent of registered voters lack the documents needed to obtain a license, and therefore, cast a ballot. These restrictions disproportionately hit low-income, minority, handicapped, and elderly voters the hardest, leading to lower levels of voter participation.
Those affected also tend to vote Democratic, which may explain why Karl Rove and his colleagues have pursued so-called voter fraud with such zeal. Several U.S. attorneys ousted in the Bush administration's infamous prosecutor purge even alleged that they were fired because they refused to aggressively prosecute baseless voter fraud claims."

The real question of protecting our voting process shouldn't be focused on ID's. The issues that lawmakers should address if they really want to "fix" our electoral system are faulty Diebold machines and hanging chads.

Because I really don't want to be reliving this movie again in November.

You can also find Contributing Editor Joanne Bamberger writing about politics and motherhood at her place, PunditMom, and she likes to hang out at MOMocrats, too!