A number of states have recently passed voter-ID legislation — among them, Texas, Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. Two others, Georgia and Indiana, implemented such laws years ago. This trend has the Left hyperventilating. From former president Bill Clinton to NAACP head Benjamin Jealous, irresponsible cries of “Jim Crow” have been uttered in a losing attempt to sell Americans a great lie: that requiring someone to authenticate his or her identity at the polling place by showing a government-issued photo identification is anything like the despicable discrimination that once existed in the South.
Advertisement
Jealous blamed “the worst and most racist elements” in conservative tea-party groups for the voter-ID push. In truth, the vast majority of Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds (more than 75 percent in the latest Rasmussen poll) support voter-ID laws. Perhaps that’s because Americans have to use a photo ID to obtain a library card, drink a beer, cash a check, board an airplane, buy a train ticket, or check in to a hotel. They understand that requiring voter ID is a commonsense reform that helps protect the security and integrity of our election process. Happily, it’s a requirement voters can easily meet.
Once you get past the race-baiting, you will find that opponents of voter ID generally rely on two arguments, equally specious: 1) There is no need for photo ID, because there is no voter fraud in the United States; 2) This is a deliberate effort to suppress the turnout of minority voters, who often don’t have photo ID. Liberals keep repeating these false claims despite the fact that they have been disproved both in the courtroom and at the polling place.
The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indiana’s photo-ID law in 2008, “Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.” The liberal groups that fought Indiana’s law didn’t have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 6–3 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.
Some opponents have tried to narrow down the argument, claiming that voter ID can stop only impersonation fraud, and that this particular type of fraud is rare or nonexistent. But as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out in the Indiana case, the relative rarity of prosecutions for impersonation fraud can be “explained by the endemic underenforcement” of voter-fraud cases and “the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator” without the tools — a photo ID — needed to detect such fraud.
One of the most egregious examples was revealed by a Brooklyn grand jury in 1984, a case the New York Times conveniently ignores whenever it rails against voter ID. The grand jury detailed a widespread conspiracy that operated without detection for 14 years, involving not only impersonation of voters at the polls, but also voting under fictitious names that had been successfully registered. Thousands of fraudulent votes were cast in state and congressional elections.
When I mention that case in debates, the inevitable reply is that it happened a long time ago, as though the 1980s were the Dark Ages. Another well-documented case occurred in a city-council election in Hoboken, N.J., in 2007. The former zoning-board president noticed a group of men near his polling place being given index cards by two people. One of those men later entered the polling place and tried to vote in the name of another registered voter who no longer lived in the ward. The impostor was caught only because he happened to be challenged by the zoning-board president. He admitted to the police that the group of men from a homeless shelter had been paid $10 each to vote using others’ names.
One of the reasons that Wisconsin changed its voter-ID law was the finding of a special task force, set up by the Milwaukee Police Department after the 2004 election, that residents from other states had registered and voted. Numerous staffers from out of state working for the John Kerry campaign and the Environmental Victory Campaign, a liberal political-action committee, had illegally registered and voted in Milwaukee.
The resistance and arguments against a voter ID are anachronistic in the 21st century world that we now live in. Identity theft, illegal immigration, and financial fraud in various incarnations, not to mention census and statistics accuracy could be remedied by a national, compulsory, ID programme. In Hong Kong, for example, one must register and carry at all times an ID (based on finger prints no less) since 1949. Albeit Hong Kong is a small place but it faced the challenges associated with all of the above mentioned issues in extremis (considering the geo-political context) and it has worked to the benefit of the citizens and the government. It has made efficient and therefore fiscally rational many transactions based on everyday needs from bank accounts, access to utilities, home purchasing, school examination systems, travel, medical care and so on. This will not appeal to those who fear government control and intrusion into ‘privacy’, but if in a democratic society we believe the government is responsible to ‘we the people’ some trust is in order. A ‘minor’ issue of voter ID (in the grand scheme of identity security) should be welcomed by all hands and those who oppose it do a disservice to the integrity of the political process.
New technology will replace the traditional photo ID with a computer chip under the skin. We will see iris scan identification at ATM machines. Ironic duality of resistance to voter ID requirements while concurrently the population at large is vulnerable to identity theft. No restrictions to vote but tighter ID requirements so a thief doesn't steal yours. Only in America can you have co-existing schozophrenia.
Cannot buy or sell in the market place unless you have the mark or if you vote you don't need it. Corruption works both ways. Lack of it or not enough. I don't know whether to shed a tear or laugh.
I would contend that voting is NOT a right, but a privilege and a responsibility in our form of government. It is not a right since the ability to cast a vote is only available because the government granted its citizens this privilege, setting guidelines as to who may exercise it. VoterID helps to prevent the abuse of this privlege.
Mike,
You are right, voting is a basic right. Citizens have the right to vote once in each election. Allowing illegal votes cancels out the rights of those people who legitimately exercised their votes. So you're ok with people having their rights curtailed by fraud?
Voting isn't a "pure" right, i.e., it is subject to regulation.
You have to be a certain age; you have to be a citizen of the United States & a resident in the state (and only in that one state) where you wish to vote (theoretically, that is); you have to be properly registered to vote; here in Florida, you have to present your voter's registration card & sign the voting "roll" when you check in, etc.
Lawrence, your "fair election" point is a good one - why should legally cast votes be diluted by those of people who have no right to vote?
How about attaching the process of voter ID attainment to the registration process. You register, you get an ID and make everyone reregister. There is no discrimination, the same rules apply to everyone.
The article failed to mention governors who vetoed bills requiring a photo ID in order to vote - Missouri, New Hampshire, North Carolina...what do they all have in common? Governors are Democrats
The risk for fraud is greater with Early Voting and no photo ID, internal controls to reduce the potential for fraud are lacking.
IDs are required for many other things, good luck buying Sudafed without a photo ID in many states, for the Democrats who claim to be concerned about the poor being able to vote, what are their thoughts about them not being able to buy allergy / cold medicine or pain medicine which also requires a photo ID for certain prescriptions?
Most medical providers require photo ID due to HIPPA laws, do the poor need X-Rays and other medical procedures?
MikeB,
Voting in the US is a CITIZEN's basic right, not the right of a legal immigrant, an illegal immigrant, or a visitor. It can be suspended for several legal reasons, being a felon or underage the most common. Proving you are a citizen to participate is not a heavy burden and is not analogous to being forced to carry a national ID as you suggest.
If voting is a "basic right" then why does anyone need to REGISTER to vote, MikeB?
Doesn't the "burden" of registration prevent some poor (or lazy) people from voting? What a tragedy!
Had a friend who was a registered alien. They went to get a license, filled out all the forms they received and one was a "motor voter" registration that they didn't understand. They were on the voting rolls for over a decade (despite informing the registrar of voters virtually annually that they were not eligible).
Blocking the simple ID requirement is so transparently corrupt that it boggles the mind. If anything, registering to vote should be harder, not easier. Yes, it is a right but if someone cannot bestir themselves at least several months before an election to find a way to register in a manner most convenient for them they are the worst people to have vote (lazy and disinterested who likely vote only when motivated by the most crass appeals...from either political spectrum).
This mindless "need" to have everyone vote is ludicrous. If an adult cannot figure this process out, register in a timely manner and come up with an ID then they probably won't even be able to fill out a ballot without screwing it up making the whole exercise a joke.
Jag, I'm not sure I understand your comment. I favor voter ID laws. I also favor mandatory government-issued ID's for all. The registration process is for making sure you're voting in the right place (among other things). I'm not sure how you could make sure someone with proper ID votes in the proper place if they're not registered. But perhaps that's not your point.
My take on your comment, MikeB, was that it was about FORCING people to register with the state.
If people can find a way to navigate life without an ID, I'm fine with that (as long as they don't request government assistance in any fashion). I don't think many can but I'm not for coercing national registration for any purpose either.
I don't think you need a federal ID law to reasonably protect society's interests. I could be wrong. I lean towards persuading people to do things that make more sense, not forcing them to behave in a proscribed manner.
The SCOTUS also said, when it upheld Indiana’s photo-ID law in 2008, that since the law hadn't gone into effect yet no decision on the merits could be rendered.
After the 2008 election several convented elderly nuns were turned away from voting at a location they'd been going to for decades. The ladies couldn't locate their old birth certificates so they couldn't get a photo ID.
"requiring someone to authenticate his or her identity at the polling place by showing a government-issued photo identification"
Unless you are WA ST which does not require proof of citizenship when you register to vote. Just go to the SoS website and look at the voter registration form. All you need is a driver's license or state issue ID and to sign off that you affirm that you are a US citizen. The problem is WA ST is one of the last few states that still knowingly issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.
