Photo ID laws hurt voters

The Supreme Court recently upheld an Indiana law that required voters to present either a driver's license or a passport in order to vote.

There are two kinds of voters in America: People have at least one of those documents, and people who don't. The people who don't are the ones the Republicans don't want voting anyway.

Chris Rabb of Afro-Netizen writes:

On the surface, it seems like a pretty reasonable ruling: folks need to prove who they are when they go to vote to avoid potential voter fraud. The reality is that what is reasonable for many white collar and blue collar voters is not so reasonable for those invisible Americans who have not earned that amorphous  moniker of "middle class".

These invisible souls are our country's poorest citizens who do not travel internationally (and thus, do no have passports) and who often cannot afford to own cars, the insurance on them or the gas in them (and thus, are far less likely to have a driver's license).

The fact that this quietly pernicious law may become federal law one day if Democrats capitulate is one matter of concern. The other is how this may impact next month's Indiana Democratic primary (and elections beyond this season) is quite another, given that the poor tend to be disproportionately Black and Democratic.

The groups most likely to be disenfranchised by restrictive photo ID rules are young voters, minorities, the elderly, and the poor. These are legitimate, registered voters who have a right to cast a ballot at their local polling place.

The problem is that neither a passport, nor a driver's license is issued automatically like an SSN card or a birth certificate. It's something a person has to go out and get. Moreover, passports and driver's licenses cost money. You have to pay to get them and pay to renew them.

If passports and driver's licenses are the only acceptable form of ID for voting, then Indiana has effectively instituted a poll tax that you pay at the DMV or the passport office.

Comments

[Gawfer]

“These invisible souls are our country's poorest citizens who do not travel internationally (and thus, do no have passports) and who often cannot afford to own cars, the insurance on them or the gas in them (and thus, are far less likely to have a driver's license).”

“The groups most likely to be disenfranchised by restrictive photo ID rules are young voters, minorities, the elderly, and the poor. These are legitimate, registered voters who have a right to cast a ballot at their local polling place.”

I noticed that you conveniently toggled between Driver’s License and Photo ID without drawing a distinction. The fact of the matter is if an individual is responsible enough to exercise their right to vote, it is not a far stretch to assume that the individual would also be responsible enough to have previously attained an ID card (not a driver’s license). The cost for an ID in California is $15.00. California also offer’s a reduced fee for those who qualify; a small price to pay to insure voting accuracy. In addition, you neglected to mention the “sign-this-affidavit-and-you-have-10-days-to-prove-who-you-are” options that are on ballots.

The only reason an individual would not support this law is because said individual is counting on the votes of the ineligible such as felons, illegal immigrants and dead people. Simply put, Voter fraud makes a mockery of our representative democracy, and any responsible citizen should protect their right to vote by supporting this law.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Indiana apparantly has implemented "Real ID", unlike many other states. Regardless, this problem will only get worse.

So getting a "state issued photo ID", driver's licence or not, requires authenicated copies of other identity documents. The $15 for the photo ID is just the last step in the chain.

Assuming you actually CAN get the other documents. Someone whose SS card was issued in the 1930's might have a bit of a hard time finding it, since it may have been lost decades ago. For taxes, etc., all you need is the number, but for ID you need the actual card.

Birth certificate? Courthouse burned down. Passport? Lost or threw out an old expired one, didn't need a new one, or never got one. Driver's licence? Gave it up after medical problems prevented driving, etc.

Our parents and grandparents didn't defeat the Nazis to have this crap imposed on them in their old age.

[Eric Jaffa]

RE "If passports and driver's licenses are the only acceptable form of ID for voting..."

People can get a general photo IDs from Indiana. It's free for the poor, unless they don't have birth certificates and need to pay for one.

A complication is that some people can't obtain birth certificates at all (the record was lost or they were born at home and no birth certificate was generated at the time.)

[Autumnal Harvest]

Gawfer, while it's nice to know that you think California's reduced fee is "a small price to pay to insure (sic) voting accuracy," this is (1) irrelevant, since California is in fact a different state than Indiana (2) irrelevant, since the 24th amendment doesn't contain an exception that states "actually, $15.00 isn't so much, so a $15.00 poll tax would be OK" (3) not in fact a small price paid by the state, but a price paid by the person who desires to vote, who may in fact deem $15.00 high a price for getting to vote. There are reasonable arguments to be made for the constitutionality of this law, but you're not even coming close to making them.

When you state that the only reason to oppose this law is to encourage voter fraud, did you fail to understand the reasons given in Lindsay's post, or just decide to pretend they don't exist?

[Gawfer]

"There are reasonable arguments to be made for the constitutionality of this law, but you're not even coming close to making them."

Really? Voter Fraud is not a good enough argument for a law to prevent 'VOTER FRAUD'?

BTW, because the cost of just about everything in California is about 150% higher than anywhere else in this great nation, I thought it appropriate to use CA as an example. A subsequent commenter has already indicated that a Photo ID is free in Indiana, so the cost argument is a moot point.

Now I understand a birth certificate is required to get a Photo ID, and if one happens to lose their birth certificate, it does takes time to replace it. But this country does not have surprise elections; everyone knows at least a year in advance of an upcoming election, and it typically doesn’t take a year to replace a birth certificate.

I as well as everyone I know personally, am diligent to keep copies of personal documents. Therefore, I refuse to accept responsibility for someone who has not been quite as concerned about maintaining their personal records or delayed in replacing lost or destroyed records. You see, there is something called personal responsibility that is a fleeting concept for those who would choose to place blame on someone else, and are always looking for 'special consideration' for a ‘unique situation’.

[mudkitty]

It seems to me that people were able to vote in the time before there was photography.

[Gawfer]

"It seems to me that people were able to vote in the time before there was photography."

And that before voter fraud was an issue. I believe it was during a time when integrity wasn't just a concept from a bygone era, but an actual virtue of the American people who cherished their rights to determine their destiny.

Hi Mud.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

My driver's license expired and I'm in the (long) process of getting my passport renewed. Ironically, I haven't renewed my lapsed DL because I need my passport to get a New York license! The passport office is years behind in issuing passports.

By Indiana's rules, I'd be disenfranchised until further notice. That's not right.

I've got a whole wallet full of photo identification (not govt ID), utility bills with my name and address on them, a library card with my name and signature, etc. Some combination of the above is sufficient to establish who I am for voting purposes. (It still is in NY.)

This obsession with preventing voter fraud by hassling individual ballot-casters is a Republican misdirection campaign. It's supposed to take our mind off the fact that the electronic voting system as a whole is ridiculously insecure, and to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters in the process.

[Bruce the Canuck]

"I as well as everyone I know personally, am diligent to keep copies of personal documents. Therefore, I refuse to accept responsibility for someone who..."

A person's democratic rights are not rooted in them sharing your values and habits. That's the filter you're trying to impose, one based on class. Poor, elderly, and dysfunctional people are still citizens and have the same rights you do.

They used to do door-to-door registration of voters in Canada, but cut the funding a few years ago. It seems to me that was the best system, and the cost was nominal.

[Bruce the Canuck]

"I believe it was during a time when integrity wasn't just a concept from a bygone era, but an actual virtue of [] people who cherished their rights to determine their destiny."

Sir,

You live in a fantasy world. Go to your local library and read some newspapers from 25, 50, and 100 years ago.

[gawfer]

"My driver's license expired and I'm in the (long) process of getting my passport renewed. Ironically, I haven't renewed my lapsed DL because I need my passport to get a New York license! The passport office is years behind in issuing passports."

One simple question: Who is responsible for letting your DL expire without renewing it?

And another question: Why the heck does one need a passport to renew a driver's license unless one is a foreign citizen?

If you are an American citizen, then renewing your license was a matter of mailing in the fees prior to expiration. And that goes back to the issue personal responsibility.

But if you are a foreign citizen, why the heck are you worried about voter fraud in a country that doesn't offer you a vote... unless you want to vote without becoming a citizen? In which case I can understand why you're complaining about this law.

"It's supposed to take our mind off the fact that the electronic voting system as a whole is ridiculously insecure, and to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters in the process."

That sounds like a conspiracy... and a great movie.

[Gawfer]

So Bruce,

Are you another foreign citizen who wants to determine American Law?

I'll just say this Mr. Canuck and not address you further: With personal rights come personal responsibility. Otherwise, anarchy will rersult.

[B-Money]

My understanding of the USSC decision is that this a State's Rights issue and that the law is applied uniformily across the board and as such passing constitutional muster. It does not specify or target one group or a historically discriminated group (i.e. blacks, women), therefore, strict scrutiny standards do not apply.

The Court found that the State has a direct interest in maintaining the integrity of its electoral process. Since voting is not uniform nationwide and the State's all have different methods, this type of requirement clearly falls within the 10th Amendment rights of the State of Indiana. Furthermore, the Statute, because strict scrutiny does not apply, passed 14th Amendment muster.

All that being said, is it the RIGHT thing to do? Legally, it can be, clearly. Whether it is morally the right thing, well, I really don't care too much. I have an ID, a passport, a SS card, a birth certificate. So it does not apply to mean and I will not feel its effects, nor will 95% I know. But the effects on the elderly and other "invisible" Americans is what concerns me most. For the reasons mentioned by others above. That is where the discussion needs to focus.

The effects on minorities do not play to my emotions. I am a minority and I have the necessary docs.

[studentactivism.net]

There was an excellent article in Politico on Monday about this ruling's likely effect on student and youth voters:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9917.html

[Orac]

Quite frankly, I've never understood why asking a citizen to provide photo ID to prove that he is who he says he is before being allowed to vote. Chris Nabb's arguments are utterly unconvincing to me that such a requirement is an undue burden on citizens or hindrance to the right to vote. Come to think of it, I never understood what the big deal would be about a national identification card, either. We already have a de facto national ID card anyway, the Social Security card, except that it's essentially worthless as any form of ID because it has no photo and is insecure.

[Orac]

Quite frankly, I've never understood why asking a citizen to provide photo ID to prove that he is who he says he is before being allowed to vote.

...is such a big deal. Never hit "enter" by accident while typing before finishing the sentence...

[Thom]

Folks interested in this topic should check out Dan Tokaji's post, "Crawford: It could have been worse." Tokaji is an election law scholar whose resources were very useful to me when I was researching this subject.

The problem isn't the poll tax--the ID itself is free, but even if the underlying documents are not, transportation to the voting booth is similarly not free. Rather, the problem is that the state has erected an obstacle to voting. Opponents argue it does so impermissibly and disproportionately; supporters say it doesn't or, ala Gawfer, that they just don't care.

[Gawfer]

"...supporters say it doesn't or, ala Gawfer, that they just don't care..."

I said that? I thought I implied the lack of, or unwillingness to express personal responsibility. And transportation to the voting booth? How about absentee ballots via mail.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Voting is a right. It's not a privilege contingent upon getting your paperwork together.

There are other ways to establish a person's identity besides passports and driver's licenses. If you show up at the polls with a birth certificate and a Social Security card and a utility bill with your current address, that's good enough.

Honestly, how many cases of voter fraud would have been prevented by photo ID, but not by the old standard? Under the existing system, you'd have to have some pretty committed fraudsters to commit any significant amount of voter fraud by impersonation. It would take hours of work and the commission of multiple felonies in order to cadge even one extra vote. First, you'd have to identify folks on the voter roles in your electoral area who were definitely not voting (i.e. dead) but not yet stricken, then you'd have to either steal or forge their birth certificate and their SIN card, finally you'd have to intercept their mail to get a recent utility bill (which you have to hope they're still getting, what with being dead and all). Finally, you've got to forge their signature when you sign in to vote. If you do all that, congratulations, one extra vote.

Much easier to bribe election officials or suppress turnout on the other side.

Yet, how many eligible voters would find themselves unable to vote under the new rules?

[voxy]

He's right.
AND, this does not cover those who vote by mail. How to id them?
My point is that if one is confined to an institution or to a nursing home or otherwise 'helpless' those votes by mail could be 'forced'.
So, this works both ways for the elite attempting to steal the vote.
They block those who can't afford the 'poll tax' and they marginalize and possibly intimidate those who vote by mail.
All of it is chipping away at the right to vote.
Which is what maintains are democratic republic.

[voxy]

i loathe when I spell things wrong and then look at them again. The other day it was fraught. Today it's our.
OUR democratic republic.

[Uncle Kvetch]

From Justice Stevens' dissent in the Crawford case:

The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.

This law is a "solution" in search of a problem. Unless, of course, the real problem is the wrong kind of people--you know, the kind who don't keep all of their papers neatly in order--voting.

[Bruce the Canuck]

>Are you another foreign citizen who wants to determine American Law?

The same issues exist north of the border, with conservatives playing the same games. Fascist attitudes towards citizen's rights tend to bleed between western democracies.

[gawfer]

Bruce! you called me a Fascist???

Liberals north of the border are just as antagonistic as south, LOL!

Lindsay,

“Voting is a right. It's not a privilege contingent upon getting your paperwork together”.
Agreed. With every right however, comes responsibility. Otherwise, those rights are lost. BTW, are you an American citizen?
“There are other ways to establish a person's identity besides passports and driver's licenses. If you show up at the polls with a birth certificate and a Social Security card and a utility bill with your current address, that's good enough.”
Well, not according to the new law.
“Honestly, how many cases of voter fraud would have been prevented by photo ID, but not by the old standard?
That’s simply undeterminable”.
“Under the existing system, you'd have to have some pretty committed fraudsters to commit any significant amount of voter fraud by impersonation. “
Do you mean like the people who are head-over-heels for Senator Obama? Or the goof balls that were nuts about Ron Paul? You know; the ones that will go as far as necessary to get their candidate elected.
“It would take hours of work and the commission of multiple felonies in order to cadge even one extra vote.”
No it wouldn’t, it would just be a matter of claiming to be somebody you’re not.
“First, you'd have to identify folks on the voter roles in your electoral area who were definitely not voting (i.e. dead) but not yet stricken,”
Obituaries are handy for that sort of thing-
“then you'd have to either steal or forge their birth certificate and their SIN card,” a utility bill is all that’s usually necessary and SSN’s were never intended to be used as ID cards. In fact there are strict guidelines for the government to follow regarding one’s SSN: http://www.cpsr.org/prevsite/cpsr/privacy/ssn/ssn.faq.html#IsItIllegalToAsk
“Is it illegal for someone to ask for my SSN?
The short answer is that there are many restrictions on government agencies asking for your number, but few on individuals or companies. When someone from a government agency asks for your number, they are required to provide a Privacy Act Disclosure Notice, which is required to tell you what law allows them to ask, whether you have to provide your number, and what will happen if you don't provide the number.”
“Finally you'd have to intercept their mail to get a recent utility bill (which you have to hope they're still getting, what with being dead and all).”
Again, obituaries-
“Finally, you've got to forge their signature when you sign in to vote.”
How easy is signing someone’s name. just make sure you spell it correctly 
“If you do all that, congratulations, one extra vote. Much easier to bribe election officials or suppress turnout on the other side.”
Really? How? Most of us aren’t savvy to voter suppression or bribery.
“Yet, how many eligible voters would find themselves unable to vote under the new rules?”
That depends on how many voters don’t play the game ‘in bounds’.
If you recall the 2004 presidential election, there were accusations of voter fraud in Ohio… from both sides of the ticket. Positive ID would have alleviated nearly all disputes, yet how much tax payer money was spent investigating the accusations? Hard to know.
I’m simply saying voting is a right that should be guarded with great tenacity, and when that right is challenged by outside entities with nefarious intentions, one must do whatever necessary to protect it. I apologize for the long winded comments, but I fought for the right of Americans (not Mexicans or anyone else in this country illegally) to vote, and I consider that right sacred.

[mikebdot]

I live in Evansville, IN and just noticed this from my local paper:

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2008/apr/30/bmv-expanding-hours-for-voters-waiving-10-fee/

The local BMVs are waiving the $10 photo ID fee and expanding hours. They're doing all they can to accommodate.

Just FYI.