The National Law Journal reports [subscription required] that “[v]oting rights activists” are challenging proposals in several states that would require voters to present a photo ID.
The controversy over photo IDs heated up still more last week, when a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report recommending that all voters nationwide present photo IDs by the year 2010.
The commission, led by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, concluded that photo IDs would help strengthen the integrity of the election process, and that a national uniform requirement is better than piecemeal state voter identification laws.
The fear among the “voting rights activists” is that if the Georgia proposal, which is being challenged, is upheld, then other states will follow suit.
“If the court says this law is constitutional, there is no doubt in my mind that other states across the South will follow suit . . . .[T]his would be returning to the Jim Crow era,” said Georgia state Representative Tyrone Brooks, president of the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
And here’s something from the article even more shocking than Brooks’s equation of requiring a photo ID with Jim Crow:
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 21 states currently require some form of identification to vote, photo or nonphoto.
So, 29 require no ID to vote?
Are photo ID’s free? If not, isn’t requiring them a poll tax?
Are photo ID’s free? If not, isn’t requiring them a poll tax?
Yes. No.
“Yes. No.”
Why if they’re not free is it not a poll tax?
Of course, how does one require ID for absentee ballots? It seems to me that the voter fraud will just go to absentee ballots, then.
Other fraud: voting in multiple states (the Times had something about NY/FL voters) — again an absentee ballot issue.
Photo ID is =something= — if it’s Jim Crow, then evidently it’s been given a pass in the 21 states that require ID. I’m sure somebody in those states has sued over it — why not check how that turned out?
That said — much more likely to cut down on fraud is jailtime for those who are caught.
meep, as far as I can tell, no state but Georgia requires, without exception, a state-issued photo ID to vote. It’s the strictest law of the bunch, plus it involves a state covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which is why it’s being tested. Of course, as you suggest, absentee voter fraud is sure to rise, not least of all because the Georgia law incredibly relaxed existing regulations for absentee voting at the same time it tightened rules for in-person voting.
On the poll tax issue, Georgia waives the registration fee for those unable to pay, but seemingly not for those unwilling to pay, nor for those unwilling to claim indigence, which I would think violates the 24th Amendment.
My state requires identification, but I’ve never been asked to show it.
Is voter registration a form of poll tax? I mean, poor people who don’t have cars will have to travel to the registration place by bus or taxi. Or if they register by mail, it costs 37 cents for a stamp.
“Is voter registration a form of poll tax? I mean, poor people who don’t have cars will have to travel to the registration place by bus or taxi”
So the question is how to distinguish the costs of voting from a poll tax. I’d say more important than the travel is the fact that you gotta take off work. And those long lines at the booth ain’t cheap.
“Or if they register by mail, it costs 37 cents for a stamp.”
That could be done for free.
If requiring a photo ID is held to constitute a poll tax, then I believe we have found a Constitutional amendment that needs repealing.
And as far as the Section 5 issue is concerned, that needs to be permitted to expire — either that, or it needs to be expanded to cover all 50 states.
“If requiring a photo ID is held to constitute a poll tax, then I believe we have found a Constitutional amendment that needs repealing.”
The ID could be free. Then its not a poll tax.
actus,
The ID could be free. Then its not a poll tax.
But people are arguing that it is a de facto poll tax, even if it’s free, because getting it will be a hassle, and even small hassles can deter people from voting. From Monday’s SF Chronicle editorial, for example:
The commission suggested a national ID card to screen voters. It came with assurances that the card should be cheap, if not free, easy to get and uniform in design. Such a card, it was argued, would do away with fraud and polling-place challenges.
But the card instantly ignited opposition, precisely along the usual lines. Critics said it imposes a burden on the poor, elderly or occasional voters who are put off by even small bureaucratic hurdles. This constituency is definitely Democratic country.
(NB the Chron gave the argument for the card, not just against, but came out against it.)
The NYT also editorialized against it, and along similar lines. The gist is that having to obtain such a card is an imposition even if it’s free.
Myself, I think having to present photo ID to vote is a good idea, and that if the card were free, the remaining burden (of time, hassle, &c.) is small enough that anyone not willing to undertake it probably doesn’t want to vote sufficiently intensely to interest him/herself in the issues enough to vote intelligently anyway. (Urgh, lousy sentence, but you see what I mean.) But the reform qua reform is pointless anyway, because if you want to commit massive vote fraud, absentee ballots are a much easier route, and no one seems to have any idea how to crack down on that.
“But people are arguing that it is a de facto poll tax, even if it’s free, because getting it will be a hassle, and even small hassles can deter people from voting.”
I didn’t think about that. But it does make sense. It takes quite a bit of time to get to the DMV. Specially if you don’ have a car.
“anyone not willing to undertake it probably doesn’t want to vote sufficiently intensely to interest him/herself in the issues enough to vote intelligently anyway. (Urgh, lousy sentence, but you see what I mean.)”
This is very scary reasoning, because it judges how worthwhile the vote of that person will be. Our franchise policy should never be based on that. I’ll leave it out there that perhaps we should be very wary of motives when proposals are defended on these lines.
Michelle, undoubtedly there is a gray area (“de facto poll taxes”, as you put it), and consequently some people will hyperbolically include every inconvenience in that category. But there are also straight-up, unconstitutional poll taxes, and Georgia’s law, with its simple pay-to-vote requirement, and lack of an exemption for those who would prefer to spend $20 on something else, seems to fit the bill.
And I would argue in the opposite direction of the second sentence highlighted by actus. People are apathetic and uninformed because they don’t vote. If we can get more people into the polls, by lowering barriers, they will become invested in the results, encouraging them to try through debate to win others to their positions, in turn encouraging everyone to become better informed.
actus, Nels,
I’m in favor of as little hassle in voting as is compatible with reasonable prevention of fraud. I don’t think the photo ID requirement is a particularly good place to start, because absentee ballots look to me like a much easier way to commit vote fraud than voting in person illegitimately.
That said, I do think that voting ought to be at least a minor hassle, something you have to budget time for, something you have to get out of bed early for or catch an extra bus for. Something you have to dip your finger in purple ink for, maybe?
actus, your ever-so-gentle innuendo about my “motives” is an insult. I do not want to keep anyone from voting. I do want people who vote to care enough about what they’re doing that small inconveniences won’t dissuade them.
When I, living in North Oakland, carless, got a jury duty summons to Alameda County Superior Court, in Hayward, no one asked me whether getting my butt down there early on a workday morning was going to be inconvenient or expensive or both; it was a civic duty, and I did it. (Thankfully I got nowhere near a jury — that really would have been inconvenient and expensive — but as it was I lost a day’s pay, BART and bus fare, and several hours.)
My point is that we insist that every citizen submit to that sort of expense of time and energy and, yes, money (because unless you have no job at all and live within walking distance of the courthouse, jury duty costs you, often a lot). Is it so ridiculous to demand what is, on its face, much less effort from people wanting to exercise the franchise?
Nels, I do not believe that people would get more interested in the issues if only voting were made easier. People are remarkably uninterested in the issues, and have become ever more so as voting has become easier. Frankly, if you were to make voting more difficult, it might pique some real interest and attention. Making it the kind of thing you really ought to be able to do by pressing a button next to your bed does not help.
“That said, I do think that voting ought to be at least a minor hassle, something you have to budget time for, something you have to get out of bed early for or catch an extra bus for. Something you have to dip your finger in purple ink for, maybe?”
Why? if government is on the consent of the governed, it should be government that begs us for power, not the other way around.
“actus, your ever-so-gentle innuendo about my “motives” is an insult. I do not want to keep anyone from voting.”
But you do want them to have to struggle in some way for it.
“Is it so ridiculous to demand what is, on its face, much less effort from people wanting to exercise the franchise?”
I think you understand the difference between the duty to serve on a jury and the right to the franchise.
People are apathetic and uninformed because they don’t vote. If we can get more people into the polls, by lowering barriers, they will become invested in the results, encouraging them to try through debate to win others to their positions, in turn encouraging everyone to become better informed.
They get more people into the polls in East St. Louis by paying them to vote. (See the recent convictions there.) I don’t think it makes them better informed.
actus,
[me:] “[Y]our ever-so-gentle innuendo about my “motives” is an insult. I do not want to keep anyone from voting.”
[you:] But you do want them to have to struggle in some way for it.
I would not say “struggle,” and I would not say “them” either. I mean us, and I mean that voting should be sufficiently serious that you might have possibly to rearrange your day to allow for it.
I think you understand the difference between the duty to serve on a jury and the right to the franchise.
Indeed I do. There are many differences, actually; for one, you do not run afoul of the law by not voting, but you do by shirking jury duty. (Leave aside, for the moment, that in the long list of law-assignment priorities, that one is absolute rock bottom.)
If I’d had a full-time minimum-wage job at the time of that particular jury-duty call to Hayward, even a day off work, plus the public-transit fare to and from Hayward, would have set me back about $40, even allowing for the nominal “juror pay” (which wouldn’t have covered the transit, never mind the lost wages). That, mind you, is for the day spent not getting on a jury. I have been called six times since I moved to CA (never getting into a courtroom, let alone onto a jury); I’ve sat around courthouses more days than I’ve voted in Presidential elections. I know which activity cost me more money and which was more hassle.
I understand the fundamental right to the franchise, and I think it only makes sense to make photo ID free if it is to be required — not that the overwhelming majority of people don’t have good certified ID already. (As it happens, I don’t have a CA DL or ID; if I need photo ID, I use my passport.) But if, speaking hypothetically, it’s unreasonable to ask people to get an ID costing $20 in order to vote, how is it reasonable to ask them to forgo $40 in income in order to make jury duty, or break the law else? (And, again, that’s day one; the loss if you’re actually put on a jury is going to be a lot higher than that.)
“I would not say “struggle,” and I would not say “them” either. I mean us, and I mean that voting should be sufficiently serious that you might have possibly to rearrange your day to allow for it.”
The problem is that if someone comes up with an easy voting system you would want to make it harder. I have no idea why you want to make a right harder to excercise, other than the idea that you want less people to do it, because it is too costly for them.
And sorry, I thought the purple finger reference was to the struggle of the iraqis.
“But if, speaking hypothetically, it’s unreasonable to ask people to get an ID costing $20 in order to vote, how is it reasonable to ask them to forgo $40 in income in order to make jury duty, or break the law else?”
Because we think one of them is a duty and the other a right. That’s the whole difference. A dtuy is something people have to do, something costly. A right is something people can do and should not be barred.
If you don’t think one should be a duty, or the other should be a right, then you want more of an explanation. Do you? Do you think voting should not be a right and serving on juries should not be a duty?
What’s next, actus? Pulling a voting lever is a “burden”? If you’re going to ridiculously equate standing in line, getting a valid ID, etc. to a poll tax, then employers who withhold their employers’ pay for the government ought to complain and/or sue that this is a violation of the 13th Amendment — involuntary servitude.
I have no idea why you want to make a right harder to excercise, other than the idea that you want less people to do it, because it is too costly for them.
That’s b/c you’re being purposely obtuse. It was stated previously it’s b/c of the desire for people who take voting seriously — people who care enough about what’s going on will take the necessary steps to cast a legal vote, perceived “burden” or no.
“What’s next, actus? Pulling a voting lever is a “burden”? ”
To the disabled it would be. And we ought to accomodate them, just like we ought to accomodate those who cannot afford to take a day to go to the ID center and turn their information over to the government.
“It was stated previously it’s b/c of the desire for people who take voting seriously — people who care enough about what’s going on will take the necessary steps to cast a legal vote, perceived “burden” or no.”
But the right to vote isn’t conditional on how serious you take it. I could wish to vote for daffy duck, and have no less right to vote than you.
But the right to vote isn’t conditional on how serious you take it. I could wish to vote for daffy duck, and have no less right to vote than you.
First, there is no “right” to vote specifically in the Constitution, but I’ll by pass that nugget. Second, the fact that you wish to vote for Daffy Duck in no way decreases your “right” as opposed to mine. You can come up with every possible excuse — and that’s what they ultimately are, excuses — of how this and that “hinders” your “right” to vote, and if you do get your way, the result will inevitable be utter chaos. I mean, what about people who work on Saturdays and/or Sundays as opposed to weekdays? Changing election day to a weekend thus doesn’t solve that problem. Mandating that no one work on election will run you into other legal hassles. And so on and so on.
You, like other lefties, desire the unachievable utopia.
inevitably….
“First, there is no “right” to vote specifically in the Constitution, but I’ll by pass that nugget.”
Have you read your bill of rights lately? it talks about rights to vote.
14th : But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
15th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
24th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
26th: The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.
“Second, the fact that you wish to vote for Daffy Duck in no way decreases your “right” as opposed to mine. ”
I know. But michelle doesn’t mind if voting is a hassle because them my supposedly frivolous vote won’t be cast.
We make accomodations, especially for situations less and less common. We don’t argue that a machine that requires the pull of a lever to vote amounts to a poll tax on the armless (forcing them to go to the hospital and spent a lot of money to obtain expensive prosthesis).
A trip to the DMV is a hassle today; a decade ago it was deemed to be an easier way to get people to register to vote.
actus: The Bill of Rights is only the first ten amendments.
Nevertheless, I was incomplete in my point about voting rights previously. As Justice Rehnquist noted in Bush v. Gore, state legislators can themselves pick who they wish as electors — they’re not bound to go by the state’s popular vote to select the electors (as is the usual custom, of course). Hence, in a presidential election, no one’s vote has actual voting power, theoretically.
I believe that is the gist of it. I’m not a lawyer, however.
“A trip to the DMV is a hassle today; a decade ago it was deemed to be an easier way to get people to register to vote. ”
Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between offering hte convenience of voter registration at the DMV and forcing people to go to the DMV?
“actus: The Bill of Rights is only the first ten amendments. ”
Duh. You’re right. Sorry.
“Hence, in a presidential election, no one’s vote has actual voting power, theoretically.”
I know. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t a right to vote for other things.
Aren’t presidential elections what we’re discussing here anyways?
“Aren’t presidential elections what we’re discussing here anyways?”
The voter ID requirement of GA isn’t only for presidential elections.
ID cards, huh? Where are they going to establish police checkpoints?
Oh…I’m sorry. That was the FLORIDA election..
>>>”Charles Hall, director of the Florida Highway Patrol, testified at the Commission
Cobra: You forgot to bring up St. Louis, Philly and all those other big cities where dead people, people w/phantom addresses, etc. all have voted.
Oh, I’m sorry. That big city vote fraud business can get a little tricky at times.
YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWN.
Hube,
You’re concerned about dead people having their votes counted, while trusting companies like Debold to count live ones?
How is this the better option?
–Cobra
I see Cobra is still being Cobra, attempting for reasons known only to himself to extinguish any last vestiges of credibility the civil rights movement might have left.
There was no “police checkpoint” at a voting booth. There was a “police checkpoint” somewhere in the state of Florida. So what? There is not the slightest bit of evidence — the USCCR certainly didn’t find it — that a single person in the state of Florida or anywhere else in the United States was ever kept from voting because of a police checkpoint to check for vehicle violations at any point in the history of the United States, let alone Florida in the year 2000.
So why even bring it up?
David writes:
>>>”There is not the slightest bit of evidence — the USCCR certainly didn’t find it — that a single person in the state of Florida or anywhere else in the United States was ever kept from voting because of a police checkpoint to check for vehicle violations at any point in the history of the United States, let alone Florida in the year 2000.”
You really want to hang your hat on that statement, given America’s history in regards to race? Given the Jim Crow South? Checkpoints for “vehicle violations” is, IMHO, akin to the times I’ve been stopped for anything from “dim license-plate bulbs” to “slightly weaving.”
–Cobra
What you are all overlooking in this entire argument is that there is NO, and i mean absolutely NO right to vote. It is a privelage that we vote. And in all honesty Im personally in favor of having a civics exam type requirement in order for people to be allowed to vote. If a person does not have at the very least a basic understanding of our govornment, the issues that they are voting on, or anything other than what color suit that nice politician was wearing, then It is better for all of us, including the person, that they not be allowed to vote. Voting simply for the sake of voting is an insane notion.
Bob writes:
>>>”What you are all overlooking in this entire argument is that there is NO, and i mean absolutely NO right to vote. It is a privelage that we vote. And in all honesty Im personally in favor of having a civics exam type requirement in order for people to be allowed to vote.”
I guess you haven’t been reading this thread very carefully, or at least the US Constitution.
Actus writes:
>>>”14th : But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
15th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
24th: The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
26th: The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.”
–Cobra
Or rather, Ive been ignoring a common misconception, You commonly hear of the “right to vote” and to the casual observer the ammendments you mention would seem to support your theory, however upon closer examination you find that they still do not grant you a RIGHT to vote. They grant you the right to not be discrimenated against in voting, and has established in the supreme court jurisprudence that there aught to be such a right, but at the moment THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE WHATSOEVER. There is currently a movement in congress.. (as of march i believe) to create such a right, but as of now there is no such thing.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_to_vote.html
This sums it up, but you may also want to look elsewhere.
-bob
They grant you the right to not be discrimenated against in voting, and has established in the supreme court jurisprudence that there aught to be such a right, but at the moment THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE WHATSOEVER.
You’re right insofar as you refer only to the provisions quoted by Cobra, but you’re missing the Guarantee Clause.
Article IV, Section 4: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,”
No, Im not missing the guarantee clause. Again that guarantee’s us a right to representation but not the concept of “One vote per person” If you look at the definition “Republic” you find that only in the middle of the 20th century did the very idea of one vote per person come into vogue. There is No “right” to vote embodied in any fashion in that clause. Nor does it affect the methedology for who is allowed to vote or anything else. I fail to see how this clause is in anyway related to the topic.
Bob
Okay…
A driver’s license costs at most, what, MAYBE 60 bucks (I think it’s 30 in NC, I don’t know because of my next point)
It’s renewed every five years (hence my failure to remember the fee). SC has a 10 year option.
So sixty dollars divided by 5 years is 12 dollars is a dollar a month is less than 4 cents a day.
some liberal place called Mother Jones said ten percent of voting age citizens do not have ID, allegedly because they can’t (most likely WON’T) afford it. Okay, say that’s 15 million people. Provide them with free ID’s, comes to about 180 million a year for the government to provide free ID’s.
Considering that most large cities will pay more than that for a sports arena, I think it is a small price to pay for more secure elections.
As for absentee voting, that’s a whole other issue.
If you’re just in another state or district, you should be allowed to show your ID, have it verified and fill out a paper ballot. (If you don’t know who is running in your district, you shouldn’t vote anyway). If you plan to be out of the country, maybe they should make an “early-bird” ballot you can fil out at the post office or something. If you LIVE outside the country, why are you voting? (Johnny Depp, paging Johnny Depp)
that’s my right wing opinion