The Democratic Piece

In Defense of Voter ID

By Austan Mogharabi
06 May 2008

Posts | Comments (14)

14 Responses to “In Defense of Voter ID”

1. Greg Sanders on 06 May 2008 at 3:21 pm #

   Why should the Democrats have to put forward a plan to solve a problem that doesn’t exist? In recent times there’s been only a single case of voter fraud via impersonation.

   I think the call for alternate solutions for the California electoral vote comparison is fair. In fact there are alternative plans such as the national popular vote which provide a different way to resolve a genuine problem.

   But before you can demand that Democrats address the problem of voter impersonation, how about providing some evidence that it’s a problem.

2. Austan Mogharabi on 06 May 2008 at 3:59 pm #

   I would agree that voter fraud isn’t a problem that exists on a large scale to my knowledge. But explain to me how you prove voter fraud (through impersonation or any other kind) when you don’t have photo ID to prove that they’re not who they say they are? Greg, if I went up to your precinct and said I was you, how would they know? (Keep in mind that racial profiling because of my name or appearance is discrimination…)

   As for “demanding” anything, I’m not demanding Democrats do anything. Indiana has a right to pass requirements for its state elections and it did so. I’m sure if the people of Indiana are upset by that, they can take it up with their legislature. My problem is this: why do Democrats have a problem? I understand it’s a bit of a nuisance, but it’s not insurmountable and to call it a serious burden is an amazing overstatement.

   I also have a problem with the manner in which Democrats are infusing their partisan problems with some sort of external virtue. They’re not pursuing this for “equality’s” sake, they’re pursuing it for party interest. So, what I’m saying is instead of complaining about something that won’t change, they can spend their energy pursuing their party interests through the administrative systems in place. Just like I expect Republican’s to do for their supporters. Get them a license, a passport, get any kind of government ID; or, get an absentee ballot.

3. Jack on 06 May 2008 at 7:03 pm #

   Echo Greg on the problem that doesn’t exist.

   Bet me entertain Austan’s call to ignore the normative dimension, drop the “indignation,” and assume double-voting is an actual source of fraud.

   One, disenfranchisement of a few points falling disproportionately on groups with strong party ID can change the outcome of a competitive race. So competitive races are becoming more critical to national outcomes. In presidential races, the number of competitive states is generally low and has been decreasing. Disregarding nationally lopsided years like 2006, the same seems true for the U.S. House. Given competitive races, legalized disenfranchisement becomes a way to rig elections. Its efficacy increases as the frequency of critical races falls.

   Two, disenfranchisement falling disproportionately on certain groups makes those groups’ concerns irrelevant to vote-seeking candidates.

   Sure, Democrats can counter by driving likely supporters to the DMV en masse. They could have paid voters’ poll taxes, too. My response: either places the affected party at an organizational and financial disadvantage. You say Republicans will face the same burdens. What I know about how the poorest identify says otherwise.

4. Andrew G. Mandelbaum on 06 May 2008 at 8:02 pm #

   Austin, first minor thing:
   “But explain to me how you prove voter fraud (through impersonation or any other kind) when you don’t have photo ID to prove that they’re not who they say they are?”

   In my experiences as a poll worker, I have never encountered a situation where someone has attempted to vote, but his name was already checked off in the roll books. I’d be surprised if such a situation happens more than once in a blue moon.

   More importantly, in trying to determine whether this is a partisan affair or not, you have failed to account for U.S. history. Not very long ago in a land called Florida, Republican state officials in predominantly minority counties purged voter rolls of suspected former convicted felons. Many were removed in error and most of these were Black.

   Not very long before Florida, Black people were sitting at lunch counters. Before lunch counters you had slavery. I’m not likening Indiana to these things, don’t get me wrong. However, what’s going on in Indiana appears to be a permutation of greater efforts that have been taken across this country to suppress minority votes. Don’t forget that Bush beat McCain in South Carolina in 2000 by spreading rumors about McCain’s “black daughter.”

   For you, this Supreme Court ruling is somewhat trivial. To someone who has had to sit at lunch counters, whose family lineage comes from the cotton fields, or who has been falsely arrested and searched by the police because of the color of his skin, I suspect it may be construed as a “malicious attempt to disenfranchise.”

   You say: “Furthermore, there is already a national system in place to get voters registered: they’re called political parties. If the democrats are really worried about depressed turnout of their likely voters (because the only way they’ll lose the election is dirty Republican tricks to decrease turn out), then the local party offices can organize GOTV campaigns. Get a van, a driver, round up people and go to the DMV or another state office that gives state ID’s.”

   Indeed, part of the role of political parties is to get out the vote. But part of the responsibility of government is to institute laws that treat all citizens equally. How has the Indiana government facilitated the process of id? Has it provided a sufficient awareness campaign so that voters know what is required of them once they go to vote? Is going to the DMV in Indiana like going to get your car inspected in DC?

   I’m just proposing hypotheticals: I don’t know what the Indiana government has dealt about trying to help voters adjust to the new system. But I bet knowing the answer to this would tell us a bit more about the intentions of those politicians who instituted the law.

5. Austan Mogharabi on 06 May 2008 at 8:21 pm #

   Jack. I love you as always for you make good points. My responses:

   1. It becomes the worry of both parties if they feel that either can legally disenfranchise voters. Also, if people perceive that there is unjust disenfranchisement, there will be a backlash. And I don’t know about you, but I studied CA politics, and when Prop 187 with its racist propaganda hit the news in CA, the Republican party there lost the support of the Latino population, which it carried beforehand. 18% might not be that much, but it’s enough to decide an election if you alienate them (plus the people right above that pay bracket who fear they might be next).

   2. Comparing voter ID to paying a poll tax is a bit of a stretch. One is illegal because it targets only people who don’t have money. The other is a method by which to ensure compliance with existing law. There are tons of poor people who have licenses or passports… And as I stated in my post, people can just get an absentee ballot if they don’t have ID. If you don’t have enough time to get an ID though, I wonder how you have enough time to wait in line and vote? (Last I looked, absentee ballots are free to mail, so it’s even better for poor people.)

   3. My point wasn’t that the problem burdened both parties equally, just that both parties would have to come up with a system to address the issue. Even if the Dem’s have more work, it really depends on where that work is, like you pointed out by explaining that close states are few and far between. All the Democrats (and Republicans) “need” to do is to worry about people in the swing states whose votes will “count” (I don’t ascribe to the idea of a wasted vote, but for those who do…). That’s a very instrumentalist view (and cynical) but it’s the truth.

6. Greg Sanders on 06 May 2008 at 9:03 pm #

   Jack and Andrew: Not surprisingly, I quite agree with what you’ve said, sorry for bits in this comment that are redundant to what you’ve already said (it’s late and I’m a little too tired to properly coordinate).

   Austan:
   Thanks for replying. As for your question there are a few protections in place, I’m going off my home county where I’ve served as an election judge, but I think many of these rules apply elsewhere.

   First, it’s necessary to have some information (such as home address and obviously what precinct the person belongs to) about the person you’re intimidating. This isn’t that hard to get a hold of, but doing a larger scale effort requires some organization that will make it easier to catch you.

   Second, election judges are typically local and the rules generally require that they represent multiple parties. These judges know some of their neighbors. If there’s a systematic effort some of the discrepancies are going to be noticed.

   Third, the parties are allowed to send watchers that can challenge the identity of voters.

   Once caught there are fairly strict penalties including loss of the right to vote for life.

   Now as to how substantial the burden is? Well there’s paying the appropriate fees and getting them to government offices, but there can be substantial burdens beyond that. For those who have lost their social security card or a birth certificate, which probably often happens in combination with periods of homelessness, falling victim to natural disasters, and other problems more likely to hit the poor.

   Is part of the solution get out the vote drives? Sure, but there logistics and turn around times with IDs that may involve mobilizing well before the election. The Democratic party and NGOs seeking to assist the poor will probably do some of these efforts. But realistically, GOTV will just concentrate on populations that are cheaper to turn out. Voter suppression isn’t about making it impossible for a class of people to vote, it’s about making it harder. Making it harder dilutes their influence because there’s going to be other groups out their that are easier to mobilize.

   So, on a strictly pragmatic level, why complain? Well first, I tend to think of this sort of thing as an effective poll tax which would violate the 24th amendment, the Supreme Court disagrees but I think they’re wrong and so I’m hoping that agitating on this issue will influence future justice picks. (My objection would go away if the state picked up the bill and logistics of getting their people ID, but absent that I consider it a tax) Alternately we may be able to influence popular opinion in Indiana.

   At the same time, in the longer term I’m hoping to build support for a constitutional amendment broader than the 24th that declares an affirmative right to vote (with possible exception for those who have committed voter fraud). Agitating on this issue helps lay the groundwork for that longer term fight.

7. Bob Richard on 06 May 2008 at 11:22 pm #

   I’ve already weighed in on this in response to Jack’s earlier post, but it’s so important to me that I will recapitulate:

   Whether or not the burden on voters is justified by a legitimate state interest has to be judged in part by whether or not the state has less burdensome means at its disposal to achieve the same end. Answer: the state does have less burdensome means at its disposal, and Indiana and several other states has chosen not to employ them. Make the issuance of ID part and parcel of voter registration, not a separate set of hoops to jump through. And assume the cost of obtaining missing birth certificates, etc. In the context of the legislative history of these laws, that cost is a poll tax in everything but name.

8. Christopher Neu on 13 May 2008 at 7:27 am #

   I found an interesting editorial in NYT on this topic that I though provided an interesting take on this. It’s pretty close to what Andrew and Jack were saying, and, despite my previous comments I’m starting to agree with those guys on this one. I mean, the NYT tells me it’s wrong, so that’s how I know.

   Editorial
   The Myth of Voter Fraud

   Published: May 13, 2008

   Missouri and at least 19 other states are considering passing laws that would force people to prove their citizenship before they can vote. These bills are not a sincere effort to prevent noncitizens from voting; that is a made-up problem. The real aim is to reduce turnout by eligible voters. Republicans seem to think that laws of this kind will help them win elections, but burdensome rules like these — and others cropping up around the country — pose a serious threat to democracy and should be stopped.

9. Austan Mogharabi on 13 May 2008 at 9:33 am #

   Hey,

   So, I found a similarly interesting story by none other than John Fund on the WSJ a few days ago. Take a look, he makes several arguments I find convincing.

   1) Older citizens are allowed to get absentee ballots, thereby reducing any problems of disenfranchising older voters who can’t be moved for extended periods.

   2) 99% of people in Indiana have a valid ID.

   3) There is an option to cast a provisional ballot then go to verify your identity within 10 days.

   4) The second part of the last paragraph is really the most important point of my whole post and this discussion - the ink is cast, so to say. Instead of complaining about what a horrible decision it was, why not come up with methods to address the “huge problem” (no actual proof of this “huge” problem in Indiana, by the way) you all seem to see in the decision.

   Sister Act
   Is Indiana really disfranchising elderly nuns?
   May 8, 2008

   The week after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law requiring that voters show a photo ID at the polls, voting in the Hoosier State’s primary appeared to run smoothly. A state hotline for voter complaints turned up no major incidents. Sean Greene, of the nonpartisan electionline.org, was monitoring precincts in Lafayette. “It’s going pretty well,” he told the Associated Press. “Most of the people I’ve seen today are prepared and used to this. They have their IDs out already.”

   Then came a report from St. Mary s Convent in South Bend. At first glance, the story was heartrending. A dozen Indiana nuns in their 80s and 90s living in a retirement home at the convent were turned away at their local polling place by a fellow nun. Sister Julie McGuire, who ran the convent precinct where the nuns were registered, said it pained her to turn away her convent companions because they either had outdated identification or none at all.

   But the story turns out to be much more complicated. The nuns had all been told earlier that they would need an up-to-date ID to vote. But none of them had asked to be taken to get an ID, and some flatly said they did not want to. Then on Election Day the nuns all showed up to vote.

   They could have been given provisional ballots, which would have counted if they had shown up at a county clerk’s office within 10 days to show an ID or sign an affidavit testifying to their identity.

   The nuns would have none of it. According to the Associated Press, they told Sister McGuire that they were not interested in getting an official state ID. She decided it was futile to offer them a provisional ballot. She says it would have been impossible for them to get them to a motor vehicle branch–the nearest one is two miles away–within the allotted 10 days after the election.

   But if their mobility is restricted, the Indiana law provides other ways in which they could have voted. Nursing homes can get a waiver of the ID requirement for residents to vote. And any Indianan over 65 is automatically eligible to cast an absentee ballot.

   * * *

   Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, defends his state ID law. A former Catholic school student, he says that while he has sympathy for the nuns, they of all people should understand the need for everyone to follow the same rules. But defiance might have been the point of the exercise. A local election official told me that that the lawyer representing a local voting-rights group immediately called the media rather than try to help the nuns obtain ID or cast a provisional ballot.

   The right to vote is fundamental, but so is the right not to have one’s vote canceled out by a fraudulent vote. An Indiana state study concluded that 99% of registered voters already have a photo ID. Yet voter ID opponents seem determined to undermine the law rather than help the few without IDs to vote. One voter in Indiana had a valid drivers license but insisted on showing an invalid federal ID anyway so he could be “denied” the right to cast a ballot and thus ”make a point.”

   Now that the Supreme Court has resolved this matter, wouldn’t it make sense for everyone to work together to get an ID into the hands of those who need them? Andrew Young, a former Atlanta mayor, believes that in an era when people have to show ID to rent a video or buy an Amtrak ticket, “requiring ID can help poor people.” He expressed support for deploying mobile buses to issue free voter IDs and allowing groups like the NAACP to arrange for visits to specific sites and neighborhoods. One stop ought to be St. Mary’s Convent in South Bend.

10. Evan B. Smith on 13 May 2008 at 4:35 pm #

    Just a quick comment on the John Fund story and this whole voter ID debate.

    As a former election administrator, I’m sympathetic to both sides of this argument. More than most, I know the importance of uniform and fair application of election law and procedure. At the same time, I know first-hand how it feels to tell someone they’re unable to cast their ballot because they don’t have the appropriate ID or because they did not register on time.

    Arguments focusing on both integrity of the process and access to the ballot are valid, and should be vigoriously debated and weighed against one another by the people’s representatives in state houses and in Congress. Unfortunately, it seems to me that politics has too often prevented that vigorous debate from taking place.

    Austan makes a good point that there is no proof of massive (or even small scale) disenfranchisement in Indiana, or in other states with similar photo ID laws. To date, not a single voter has come forward or been a party to any legal action who has been directly harmed by Indiana’s voter ID law in such a way as to give her legal standing.

    On the other hand, however, no proof exists of massive voter fraud committed by eligible or ineligible voters in Indiana or elsewhere. Obviously, fraud is difficult to prove, but surely if illegal immigrants or felons or double-voting impersonators were committing voter fraud in large numbers the extremely local nature of election administration in the US, where precinct workers personally know a large proportion of the voters coming into their polling place, would work as it is intented to catch some of them.

    The bottom line is that evidence is lacking on both sides, but rather than come together in a call for further investigation and study, ill-informed partisans on both sides of this issue have taken ideologically or politically motivated stands.

    Instead of calling for the law to be struck down, or saying we should live with it and work to get IDs to poor people, we should be calling for rigorous studies of the voter registration and election day processes in this country that deal with voter eligibility in order to determine the extent and nature of both fraud and disenfranchisement. Only then should we draw conclusions and begin the policy debate over solving the problem of voter identification.

11. Jack on 13 May 2008 at 9:58 pm #

    While I agree that facts are the basis on which public policy should be made, I would repeat the normative case in different words.

    When we help run other countries’ elections, we implement voter ID while making sure everybody who would want one gets one. On a related note, a compelling state interest in defending our elections against fraud implies a state duty to vigorously issue those IDs. Voting is already too difficult in this country. Rather than do something to make it easier, Indiana and other states have used a non-reason to make it harder.

    Voter ID makes a very clear statement: we don’t care whether you vote; we just want to make absolutely sure whoever does vote isn’t an illegal immigrant or double-voter.

    Indiana doesn’t care whether people vote. Some TDP readers will be okay with that. I prefer my democracies to encourage voting.

12. Greg Sanders on 14 May 2008 at 5:05 am #

    For data to support the idea that voting in general is too hard, Wikipedia (and some more reliable sources it cites) has some data showing the that America does relatively poorly when it comes to voter turn out.

    Admittedly, that can be driven by a range of factors including non-competitive elections. Thankfully we’re having a pretty good year so far, but too soon to say whether that will prove durable.

    But the point is, when we’re talking about large scale problems America does have a turn out problem and we do not have a fraud problem. So, while we lack data on any particular modification to the system, we know the larger context and that context is that proportionally fewer Americans than citizens in other Democracies vote.

    At the same time, as Jack among others have said, the obvious solution is to work to provide IDs. Lawmakers that wanted to encourage voters to participate would do so in tandem with ID requirements at the polls.

13. Jack on 14 May 2008 at 11:31 am #

    Even in high-turnout presidential years, turnout hovers around 50% eligible. Pathetic. Even if it’s an indicator of ‘overall satisfaction.’

14. Jack on 15 May 2008 at 6:35 am #

    More interesting voter ID-relevant factoids. The SotS in my home state, citing a UCONN study, says no dead people voted.

    She said in many instances it was a clerical error where the local poll worker mistakenly crossed off the deceased person’s name, instead of the name of a living voter, which was one line above or below. She said a lot of the mix ups were between fathers and sons that shared the same address and the same first and last names.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (hidden) (required)

Website