Voting ID, the problems it purports to solve, and the problems it might create

Pages

We've had this discussion before, but it appears we need a thread again.

Relevant reading:

* GOP War on Voting thread
* (Compulsory) national ID cards

The threadjacking in the Wisconsin State Senate Recalls thread starts here.

Have at it, but as always I'd like to ask that we keep things civil and avoid ad hominems.

FWIW, up here in Canada, voter ID is mandatory, and has been for as long as I have been voting (20+ years) in municipal, provincial and federal elections.

You have to physically have ID on you to vote? Do you have to pay for it?

You have to realize that, historically in the U.S., things like charging people money to vote was used to disenfranchise poor people and especially blacks, so seeing these old ideas recycled again is quite appalling to people who know the history of voting here.

In Canada, what happens if you're too poor to afford to do the paperwork to get an ID? Are you simply unable to vote?

mudbunny wrote:

FWIW, up here in Canada, voter ID is mandatory, and has been for as long as I have been voting (20+ years) in municipal, provincial and federal elections.

And here I thought the Canadians were supposed to be the nice ones. I didn't realize they were racist and hated the poor.

Please be aware that I'm being sarcastic.

Malor wrote:

You have to physically have ID on you to vote? Do you have to pay for it?

You have to realize that, historically in the U.S., things like charging people money to vote was used to disenfranchise poor people and especially blacks, so seeing these old ideas recycled again is quite appalling to people who know the history of voting here.

In Canada, what happens if you're too poor to afford to do the paperwork to get an ID? Are you simply unable to vote?

Hunh, turns out I was (partially) wrong. I went to the Elections Canada page on voter ID requirements

There are 3 ways you can ID yourself:

1 - Option 1

Show one original piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.
Examples

Driver's Licence
Ontario Health Card
Note: Not all electors in Ontario will have cards with photo, name and address
Provincial/Territorial Identification Card for the provinces/territories of
Newfoundland and Labrador
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Manitoba
Alberta
British Columbia
Northwest Territories
Nunavut

2 - Option 2

Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.

Identity Cards

Driver's Licence
Health Card
Canadian Passport
Certificate of Canadian Citizenship (Citizenship Card)
Birth Certificate
Certificate of Indian Status (Status Card)
Social Insurance Number Card
Old Age Security Card
Student ID Card
Provincial/Territorial Identification Card
Liquor Identification Card
Hospital/Medical Clinic Card
Credit/Debit Card
Employee Card
Public Transportation Card
Library Card
Canadian Forces Identity Card
Veterans Affairs Canada Health Card
Canadian Blood Services/Héma-Québec Card
CNIB ID Card
Firearm Possession and Acquisition Licence or Possession Only Licence
Fishing, Trapping or Hunting Licence
Outdoors or Wildlife Card/Licence
Hospital bracelet worn by residents of long-term care facilities
Parolee Identification Card

Original documents
(with name and address)

Utility Bill (telephone, TV, public utilities commission, hydro, gas or water)
Bank/Credit Card Statement
Vehicle Ownership/Insurance
Correspondence issued by a school, college or university
Statement of Government Benefits (employment insurance, old age security, social assistance, disability support or child tax benefit)
Attestation of Residence issued by the responsible authority of a First Nations band or reserve
Government Cheque or Cheque Stub
Pension Plan Statement of Benefits, Contributions or Participation
Residential Lease/Mortgage Statement
Income/Property Tax Assessment Notice
Insurance Policy
Letter from a public curator, public guardian or public trustee
One of the following, issued by the responsible authority of a shelter, soup kitchen, student/senior residence, or long-term care facility: Attestation of Residence, Letter of Stay, Admission Form or Statement of Benefits

(Some notes for this:
1 - For electors residing in seniors’ residences and long-term care facilities, a photocopy of an item on the list is acceptable. This exception is made to address the fact that when residents are admitted, they routinely transfer their original ID to the administrator or to members of their family.
2 - A document with an address may be used as proof of the elector's residential address only if it was written by the issuer of the document. For example, a passport cannot be used as proof of address because the address is filled in by the passport holder. A passport can still be used to prove your name.
3 - No document other than those included on this list may be accepted to establish the name and address of an elector.)

3 - Option 3

Take an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you (both of you will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.

Examples: a neighbour, your roommate.

Some of the IDs above cost money to get (drivers license, passport, etc), while some are free (health card, social insurance number)

However, no matter the situation, you *do* need to either have ID yourself or have someone in the same polling district who has a piece of valid ID vouch for you.

Malor wrote:

You have to physically have ID on you to vote? Do you have to pay for it?

You have to realize that, historically in the U.S., things like charging people money to vote was used to disenfranchise poor people and especially blacks, so seeing these old ideas recycled again is quite appalling to people who know the history of voting here.

In Canada, what happens if you're too poor to afford to do the paperwork to get an ID? Are you simply unable to vote?

The US history is a fair statement, however most 1st world nations do require identification not only to vote, but to exercise many of the government benefits. Most of them also have immigration policies that would seem draconian to people here.

Voter ID has a positive impact on the perception of the fairness of the democratic process, which is good. There are many other benefits to having a government ID as well. So long as there is assistance for those who need it in acquiring it, I don't see why any rational actor would have a problem with it.

bandit0013 wrote:

Voter ID has a positive impact on the perception of the fairness of the democratic process, which is good. There are many other benefits to having a government ID as well. So long as there is assistance for those who need it in acquiring it, I don't see why any rational actor would have a problem with it.

Well, you could go revisit our conversation in the War on Voting thread, but the tl;dr version is: the best-case for laws like the ALEC-written 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 seems to be that they do nothing to solve a statistically-nonexistent problem, while requiring additional expenditures to do so, and simultaneously ignoring a larger threat to the accuracy and transparency of our elections.

bandit0013 wrote:

Voter ID has a positive impact on the perception of the fairness of the democratic process, which is good.

If you want have a positive impact on the perception of fairness of the democratic process you'd be much better served by making sure there's complete transparency in political donations than screwing around with voter IDs. The problems in our democracy aren't found at polling stations, they're found in back rooms, lobbyists offices, and all the fund raisers were money is exchanged knowing full well that means extra consideration for those writing the check.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Voter ID has a positive impact on the perception of the fairness of the democratic process, which is good. There are many other benefits to having a government ID as well. So long as there is assistance for those who need it in acquiring it, I don't see why any rational actor would have a problem with it.

Well, you could go revisit our conversation in the War on Voting thread, but the tl;dr version is: the best-case for laws like the ALEC-written 2011 Wisconsin Act 23 seems to be that they do nothing to solve a statistically-nonexistent problem, while requiring additional expenditures to do so, and simultaneously ignoring a larger threat to the accuracy and transparency of our elections.

So these people with no ID who can't seem to find the time or energy to get out to acquire one... How do they get their other benefits like fica and welfare, etc? Surely you don't think we should just hand out benefits to anyone who asks? Again, the question posed is how is it a bad thing to require people to have an ID? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that "additional expenditures" are not significant.

Of note: I believe that most people who object to these laws to add a requirement for presenting ID at voting time would find it less objectionable if the law included a run-up period during which such ID cards were made freely and easily available. (i.e. make sure that every citizen has ample opportunity to acquire state ID through a combination of adding additional ID centers to handle increased load, perhaps with some sort of traveling "ID-mobile"s to increase coverage, etc. etc.)

If I were planning to implement such a thing, I would suggest a four-year period to get the operation set up, to educate the populace about the methods available for them to acquire ID, to soothe fears among some segments of the populace that the agency issuing these IDs wouldn't be using the information gathered for nefarious purposes, and to ensure that there's plenty of time for the IDs to be distributed before they are required.

In practice, of course, these laws are being passed with six months lead time and no additional funding for ID distribution.

--

Back when I didn't have a state-issued ID, I presented my social security card, a notarized copy of my birth certificate, my student ID, and a piece of mail I had received at my current address (in various combinations, depending on what was required of me.)

Of course, I was not receiving welfare. I find your choice of services that people without photo ID might require documentation to obtain to be rather illuminating. And insulting.

Hypatian wrote:

Of note: I believe that most people who object to these laws to add a requirement for presenting ID at voting time would find it less objectionable if the law included a run-up period during which such ID cards were made freely and easily available. (i.e. make sure that every citizen has ample opportunity to acquire state ID through a combination of adding additional ID centers to handle increased load, perhaps with some sort of traveling "ID-mobile"s to increase coverage, etc. etc.)

If I were planning to implement such a thing, I would suggest a four-year period to get the operation set up, to educate the populace about the methods available for them to acquire ID, to soothe fears among some segments of the populace that the agency issuing these IDs wouldn't be using the information gathered for nefarious purposes, and to ensure that there's plenty of time for the IDs to be distributed before they are required.

In practice, of course, these laws are being passed with six months lead time and no additional funding for ID distribution.

And less than a year in supposed battleground states before a presidential election. Notice how most of these laws are coming from Republican dominated legislatures and/or GOP governors?

bandit0013 wrote:

Voter ID has a positive impact on the perception of the fairness of the democratic process, which is good.

Does it though? I guess I might be jaded since I had a fake ID in high school and college and knew of countless others who did as well; and that was just to get alcohol. I'd imagine someone wanting to commit voter fraud would have just as easy of a time getting a hold of fake IDs as we did.

bandit0013 wrote:

So these people with no ID who can't seem to find the time or energy to get out to acquire one... How do they get their other benefits like fica and welfare, etc? Surely you don't think we should just hand out benefits to anyone who asks? Again, the question posed is how is it a bad thing to require people to have an ID? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that "additional expenditures" are not significant.

It's a little odd that you seem to have blotted out our previous conversation, and appear uninterested in re-reading the old thread (the answer to your "expenditures" speculation is still there). In the event that other folks want information but don't want to read either of the existing discussions, here's the crux of the matter, as I see it:

Dimmerswitch[/url]]As I keep repeating, while I think there is a reasonable case to be made for general ID reform (and furthermore that some amount of voter ID could be incorporated into that), that's not what the ALEC-written laws we're discussing in this thread actually do.

They're bad laws.

They're laws that, at best, waste money on a statistically insignificant problem. Your one-year odds of dying due to "Hanging, strangulation, and suffocation" are roughly the same as the chance of you committing individual vote fraud. The one-year odds of drowning are far higher than the chance of you committing individual vote fraud.

Dimmerswitch[/url]]At the risk of repeating myself:

Dimmerswitch wrote:

A 2004 Ohio study showed voter fraud like that was 0.00004%. The Wisconsin vote fraud investigation (warning, PDF) MattDaddy linked to in the other discussion I mentioned upthread found that mistakes and fraud by election workers were a far more significant issue.

If ensuring accurate, transparent election results is the goal (and I agree that's a worthwhile goal) - investing money in procedures for election officials & an auditing process are much better places to put resources towards than Voter ID laws.

I'm not particularly interested in continuing to quote and link to discussions we've already had, so I'll leave you folks to it.

Spoiler:

I do appreciate folks no longer hijacking the Wisconsin State Senate Recalls thread for this conversation, though. :)

bandit0013 wrote:

So these people with no ID who can't seem to find the time or energy to get out to acquire one... How do they get their other benefits like fica and welfare, etc? Surely you don't think we should just hand out benefits to anyone who asks? Again, the question posed is how is it a bad thing to require people to have an ID? I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that "additional expenditures" are not significant.

As I pointed out in another thread, my grandmother did not need any ID before she died and didn't have one. She had her Social Security check direct deposited, her assisted living facility took care of her physical needs, and her bills were paid through ACH. After she stopped driving due to her frail nature, she simply let her DL lapse.

For her to get an ID would require physical assistance to and from a location for her to get an ID. Before she died, she needed professional care for some basic needs. Who should foot the bill for an attendant to take care of her for her trip to the state agency that issues the IDs? Or should we just throw her into the camp of "too bad, so sad" and let her right to vote be stymied?

So these people with no ID who can't seem to find the time or energy to get out to acquire one... How do they get their other benefits like fica and welfare, etc?

In other words, those lazy nonconformists don't deserve to vote, because they don't comply with bandit's expectations.

Also note the assumption that they're automatically on government benefits.

Bandit, voting is a right, not a privilege.

OG_slinger wrote:
bandit0013 wrote:

Voter ID has a positive impact on the perception of the fairness of the democratic process, which is good.

If you want have a positive impact on the perception of fairness of the democratic process you'd be much better served by making sure there's complete transparency in political donations than screwing around with voter IDs. The problems in our democracy aren't found at polling stations, they're found in back rooms, lobbyists offices, and all the fund raisers were money is exchanged knowing full well that means extra consideration for those writing the check.

We totally agree on something. As a Dan Carlin fan, I agree wholeheartedly with him that the first step needs to be get the corruption out of politics. I'd prefer to see either a hard limit on political donations, or a shared pot that is distributed equally among all candidates.

A poll tax by any other name if you ask me. I have to pay for my license, passport. Our Supreme Court has been very explicit about needing to pay money in order to vote.

Now then. I am in favor of a unified national ID system that is free for all. Combining driver license, Social Security Card, Birth Certificate information on one card would be tremendous.

As for requiring identification to vote. From my recollection, our Supreme Court has tended to frown upon mandatory pictorial identification save for the airport. A police officer cannot demand your drivers license unless you stand accused of an infraction or a crime. This came up some years ago when an Ohio Man made waves by not having his bags checked at Wal-mart and the police were called on him. The thrust of the rationale for the Supreme Court not agreeing that police can just demand photo ID is linked to privacy, the 5th amendment.

What I fail to grasp is just what problem an ID system in voting would accomplish. Presently to vote you must register. In Michigan it is at the Secretary of State Office or at your precinct. Because you can only vote in your local precinct-for reasons of protecting against fraud, you must know where the precinct is-often libraries, schools. How can the Federal Government or State governments justify the expense of an ID system presently when there has not been a demonstrable epidemic of voter fraud?

Now I know our elected officials are good at making phantoms to fight in order to distract from more pressing issues. I heard some men who kiss men may want marital benefits, gross no?

But looking at studies even painted bleakly. I fail to see a link between requiring ID and eliminating election related crime. Based on the convictions found, it seems to be a microscopically small issue. And if you look at the individual cases, we see very few instances of false ID voting, more often vote buying, vote coercion, intercepting absentee ballots, etc.

I used welfare and FICA because to legally hold employment you must present two forms of ID.

Thus the presumption that if you don't have one it is highly likely you aren't working.

bandit0013 wrote:

I used welfare and FICA because to legally hold employment you must present two forms of ID.

That's news to me, and I've been gainfully employed for quite a while now.

IRS wrote:

You are required to get each employee's name and Social Security Number (SSN) and to enter them on Form W-2. (This requirement also applies to resident and nonresident alien employees.) You should ask your employee to show you his or her social security card. The employee may show the card if it is available. You may, but are not required to, photocopy the social security card if the employee provides it.

No mention of required identification there.

Where do you get these ideas?

Edit: Ah. You're probably thinking of the I-9 form. You'll note that the things that count as ID on that form are quite varied. For example, the combination of a social security card and a voter registration card is sufficient. (And neither of those things has a photo on it.)

I personally used my social security card and a notarized copy of my birth certificate.

It might be a good time to point out that "need ID to do X" is not the same as "need state-issued photo ID to do X". There's a reason almost every official thing like the I-9 form has multiple possible combinations of identifying documents--so that it's very rare for somebody to not be able to get together one of the valid combinations in a reasonable amount of time, and because [em]it's not expected that everybody has state-issued photo ID[/em].

There's also a big difference between "we're now informing you that we need you to get this stuff for us before we can start paying you--we need it in the next three days"* is not the same as "you needed to get this stuff down to a license center last month, so you're not going to be able to vote until next year. Sorry."

(* the form must be filled out on the first day of employment. Verifying documents must be presented by the third day of employment.)

The problem is my grasp of the English language isn't sufficient to convey the rational disdain for the concept that in a society that is increasingly wired that it is acceptable for any member not to have a proper identification and acceptable for them to access a myriad of benefits without it.

It's like you guys want society to have fully functioning benefits without fully functioning members or something. The medical benefits of having everyone ID'd alone are staggering.

bandit0013 wrote:

The problem is my grasp of the English language isn't sufficient to convey the rational disdain for the concept that in a society that is increasingly wired that it is acceptable for any member not to have a proper identification and acceptable for them to access a myriad of benefits without it.

It's like you guys want society to have fully functioning benefits without fully functioning members or something. The medical benefits of having everyone ID'd alone are staggering.

But, voting is not a "benefit" of being an American citizen. It is a fundamental right for a citizen in a constitutional republic.

Do you also think that people should have to carry ID to walk down the street? Is freedom to walk down the street a "benefit"?

Like it or not, many people don't have these things.

You can't put a precondition on exercising a right, bandit. If you can, it's not a right.

Having ID for everyone isn't wrong, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is changing the rules to require ID for a basic right without first doing the necessary work to protect that right.

Again: If the laws in question had a reasonable lead-up period and authorized the funding of agencies necessary to ensure that everyone gets ID cards, that would be a reasonable approach. And yes, there would be myriad other potential benefits to having such universal ID.

(Those people who are paranoid about the government getting up in their business might spend quite some time arguing against universal ID, but that's a different issue.)

Instead, we have laws that require ID from citizens to exercise their right to vote on the next election, without serious efforts at making universal ID easily available. In Pennsylvania, where I live, it is now possible to get a free ID card. The process to get one requires you to swear an oath that you have no other ID that would be sufficient for voting purposes. You still have to do this at one of the hugely overworked DOT photo license centers. You still have to understand that you need to do this and get down to do it before the next election.

It's a mess, and it's not consistent with the idea that "universal ID is good, we should do it". In fact, that isn't even one of the arguments given for the law. The arguments are about preventing illegitimate votes from being cast (which, as we've shown many times in this thread, isn't a real problem.) All of this raises suspicions about why exactly people (and specifically, Republican legislators) have suddenly got a bug up their ass about this question. Because it's clearly not because there's an unreasonable amount of voter fraud, and it's also clearly not because they support mandatory universal ID (in fact, they'd probably be the first to object to that idea). So... what's the real reason?

The most obvious possibility is disenfranchising certain portions of the voting base for the short term. It's unlikely to make a major change in the long term, once people fully understand their rights and obligations under the law. But for this next election? There are going to be some people for whom "I have to go stand in line to get an ID card?" is enough of a hassle to tip them over the fence from "Meh, voting, but I'll do it--all I have to do is walk down to the poll" to "Meh, voting, I should go get my ID card in advance but it's going to be a hassle and I don't care enough".

--

In short: This isn't a law about universal ID. So why are you talking about either the benefits or drawbacks of that?

In Tennessee, they have an explicit rule that a license clerk may not offer you a free ID card. They are not allowed to mention the free option. You can only get the free ID if you know it exists, and you loudly insist on obtaining that version.

Malor wrote:

In Tennessee, they have an explicit rule that a license clerk may not offer you a free ID card. They are not allowed to mention the free option. You can only get the free ID if you know it exists, and you loudly insist on obtaining that version.

I am wholly opposed to this. It's not an argument against IDs for everyone though. It's an argument against a dickish state government. As I've stated before, I think the social security administration should be in charge of all identification and your birth, death, medical, selective service, etc should all be driven off of that identification.

State license to drive, piggy back it on the national id. It makes sense to consolidate it instead of having the laundry list of IDs on the I-9.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

But, voting is not a "benefit" of being an American citizen. It is a fundamental right for a citizen in a constitutional republic.

Do you also think that people should have to carry ID to walk down the street? Is freedom to walk down the street a "benefit"?

Actually yes, it is a benefit that is limited to:

American citizens over 18 years of age in a specific jurisdiction (as a member of Ohio I can't vote in California no matter how much of a right to vote I have) and *gasp* not a convict (which I disagree with, but whatever, it's codified). Prove you are without identification and I will allow that you can vote. You are overstating the phrase "fundamental right".

Just because something is a "right" doesn't mean you can exercise it without any restrictions, see "freedom of speech" for that.

No, it is a right that is restricted from minors who we do not yet consider competent to exercise it, restricted as a punishment from convicts (which I also disagree with), and which is administered by the territory in which you reside.

You are correct that rights can be restricted. That does not, however, turn them into benefits. The distinction is exceptionally important with regard to the political philosophy of the United States.

Hypatian wrote:

No, it is a right that is restricted from minors who we do not yet consider competent to exercise it, restricted as a punishment from convicts (which I also disagree with), and which is administered by the territory in which you reside.

You are correct that rights can be restricted. That does not, however, turn them into benefits. The distinction is exceptionally important with regard to the political philosophy of the United States.

I get what you're saying, but on the basis of convicts I call it a benefit. *shrug* potato potatoe

I tend to see a right as something more.

This may be a derail, but I think there's a lot going on here in the disagreement in what defines a right and a benefit. The heart of this may hold some explanation as to why idiots are convinced that - for example - Limbaugh's freedom of speech was denied by corporate sponsors withdrawing funding.

How far can rights be limited before they are considered privileges?

I am of the mindset that if you're going to put conditions/restrictions on a right (especially the one that is central to our government and society), then those conditions must be accompanied by sound reasons and solid evidence that they are absolutely needed. Everything I've seen/read seems to run counter to that idea on the topic of Voter ID laws. There's no real problem, but legislators are still all too eager to push bills through.

KingGorilla wrote:

A poll tax by any other name if you ask me.

This is what it increasingly seems like to me.

Seth wrote:

This may be a derail, but I think there's a lot going on here in the disagreement in what defines a right and a benefit. The heart of this may hold some explanation as to why idiots are convinced that - for example - Limbaugh's freedom of speech was denied by corporate sponsors withdrawing funding.

How far can rights be limited before they are considered privileges?

A nationwide radio show is not part of freedom of speech.

Edit: The only group that can take away your freedom of speech is the government.

Pages