TMN
News 36
Detours
KTRM
Voter ID requirement is sensible
Lacy Murphy
The Missouri House of Representatives gave first round approval to a controversial voter identification bill that would require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls. If passed, voters would have to approve the change through an upcoming vote. This is perfectly reasonable — it would significantly prevent voter fraud without undue discrimination.
Currently, acceptable forms of ID for registering to vote include a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other federal government document. Valid identification issued by the state of Missouri, an agency of the state or local election authority, a Missouri institution of higher education, or a driver’s license or state identification card issued by another state can also serve as voter identification. Out of these forms of IDs, the majority include a photo.
The bill is receiving resistance from those who argue that the bill is racist and suppresses minorities who don’t have an ID because it’s too expensive or difficult to obtain because they don’t drive. Opponents of the bill contend it disproportionately affects elderly, minority and low-income groups.
Democrats are even comparing the bill to a poll tax with which states imposed voting fees to discourage black and poor white people from voting in the past. Because getting an ID can cost money, many who are opposing the bill are declaring it to be a financial barrier. But just how expensive is getting a photo ID in Missouri? The fee for a driver’s license is either $10 or $20, depending on the expiration of the license and its class. The fee for a non-driver ID card is $11, according to www.dmv.org. For Missourians, obtaining an ID through the DMV generally is inexpensive.
Many would still argue that cost isn’t the problem and finding transportation for those pursuing an ID is problematic. However, I find it absurd. Difficulty coordinating transportation once every three years to renew an ID shouldn’t be a deal breaker for this bill.
When I was working at JC Penney during high school, we were instructed to ask for photo identification when a customer paid with a credit card. We were not allowed to process a transaction unless an ID was produced. Rarely did we run into that issue, though. Most people happily produced an ID and many people even thanked us for asking. Why are people suddenly crying foul when being asked for an ID during an important process like voting? They seemed pretty happy about it when we asked them for a photo ID to save them from losing money.
These issues aside, some say voter ID laws are superfluous. Why do you need a solution when there is no great problem? News21, a national investigative reporting project, found that since 2000, there have only been 2,068 alleged voter fraud cases, 10 of which were found to be in-person fraud, according to www.votingrights.news21.com. Those 10 cases represent times where a photo ID could have prevented fraudulent voting. However, a photo ID law is not limited to impersonation. It would deter wrongful voters from registering in more than one state or using phony names.
Besides, there are other situations in which having a photo ID can be useful. For example, buying alcoholic beverages requires a license proving proper age. I find it difficult to believe all the voters who are hypothetically supposed to be affected by this bill never purchase alcohol. Do all of these affected groups also never fly on a plane?
Missourians need to view the bill from the perspective of who it protects, not who it theoretically limits. The bill does not selectively protect only a certain group of people. It protects people of all genders and races. We have enough corruption in politics as is. A law that protects voting, the cornerstone of democracy, is important. I’m not claiming voter fraud to be a widespread problem, but if we can eliminate a problem — no matter the size — we must. Integrity at the polls must be assured.
The author falls prey to several of the classic canards that surround the push for (photo) voter id. Let’s begin with the faulty assumption that underlines the article: that citizens don’t already produce some identification to vote. The Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, which was passed in the wake of the 2000 presidential election requires some form of identification to vote–in fact, it’s that very list of identification the author includes. Yes, that’s right, to cast a ballot you must present identification.
Next, and I think this is particularly troubling: you need id to [pay with a credit card]. Here’s what’s wrong with that analysis–the right to vote is a fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right! Paying with a credit card at JCP is not. Here’s a handy analogy for the Index editorial board: what if we passed a law requiring proof of research to publish a newspaper article? I mean, you’re already doing the research anyway, right? Again, such a requirement, no matter how high minded, is an impermissible infringement on a fundamental, constitutionally protected right (just this time it’s the 1st amendment).
And another favorite of mine that makes an appearance: well, sure, ID’s cost, but it’s only 10 or 20 dollars! This author would do well to review the text of the 24th amendment which says “[the right to vote] shall not be denied or abridged … by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” That’s pretty strong language! It’s not “unreasonable poll tax?” Quite simply, if you make the right to vote contingent upon having something that costs money, then that is a poll tax. If you want to “protect” citizens, how about we start by protecting them from constitutional violations?
Finally, the author suggests that we must eliminate any problem “no matter the size” and sure, no one wants voter fraud. The author admits she’s unsure if voter fraud is “a widespread problem”! Surely we can both agree that preventing eligible citizens from voting–”the cornerstone of democracy”–is a problem.
There are a vast number of ways to enhance voting schemes that won’t limit the right to vote–maybe we should try some of those first?
What are a few examples of the “vast” number of ways to enhance legitimacy during the voting process?
Also, I think you’re analogy concerning the editorial board is probably not the best example.
The problem of “voter fraud” is a complete myth, and the push for such photo ID requirements is ultimately an attempt to further institutionalize discrimination and oppression. Your example of JC Penney’s store policies is problematic and frankly, irrelevant — paying with a credit card at a department store isn’t a constitutional right. Making a photo ID a requirement to vote would severely disenfranchise already disenfranchised groups: elderly people, people of color, trans* people, people living in poverty, and disabled persons. This isn’t the first time the Republican Party has tried to code attempts at voter suppression as “sensible” and “a necessity.” Photo ID follows a long string of such unconstitutional measures, just literacy tests and poll taxes made over for the 21st century.
This is another fine example of absolute tripe from the Index. Also, the board analogy may not be the best, but its better than the JC Penny example. This article shows the opinion of a very sheltered person who has yet to experience living from paycheck to paycheck.
I’m not sure if you’ve thought your argument through all the way, and the examples you give show a very idealistic view of the world. Your point about alcohol, for instance, is irrelevant. There are more instances of underage drinking and individuals not being carded (because, hey, if you have gray in your beard, it’s kind of assumed that you’re over 21) than voter fraud. People don’t always need a license to purchase alcohol. Your point about JCP, also seems very idealistic. Not all socioeconomic classes shop at JCP, which gives your example truth only to a narrow demographic. Many of the poor live paycheck to paycheck and may not need a drivers license. I know of many people who do not have driver’s license, simply because they do not need them, and the cost is not worth it. Not everyone owns a car. The proposed bill would essentially require people to purchase the ability to vote (in the form of photo-identification), which is against the constitution.
The opinions writers at the Index are not considered “staff”. They have their columns purchased like most newspapers. If the opinions writers were a part of the staff, that would give the newspaper a bias. These are individuals who have shown a desire to have their opinion heard. The Index should be applauded for printing a conservative piece since it’s obviously a more liberal paper. It shows they are willing to represent both sides.
I think a photo ID could prove to be useful. Perhaps a way to solve the problem would be to offer a form of ID that doesn’t cost money, but still has to be applied for in person.
By the way, attacking Ms. Murphy and calling her “sheltered” is pure conjecture.
@anonymous
The board example may have been hasty, but the point remains: free expression, like voting, is a fundamental, constitutionally protected right. Those rights may be infringed (i.e. limited) but having “a good reason” isn’t enough. Mythical voter fraud, like wanting to ensure quality, factual articles, isn’t good enough.
As for alternative voter reforms, here are a few off the top of my head:
-Automatic voter registration for all 18 year olds
-Increased funding for poll worker training
-Increased funding for poll systems (e.g. all electronic voter rolls)
-Linking voter rolls to census data
-Automatic voter registration at governmental point of contact (e.g. tax filings, DMV, welfare, so forth)
-Linkage of State voter rolls to State/Federal Death Databases (e.g. Social Security Death Index)
There are many kinds of voter fraud–and in person voter fraud is the smallest, likely non-existant, type. Making sure we have accurate, up-to-date, smart voter rolls is the best way to decrease fraud. Example: Imagine that voter ID existed nation wide and that in person fraud was an issue. Citizens of kirksville could simply cross the state line to Iowa were they were fraudulently registered to vote, and even showing ID, could cast a second ballot. Photo ID doesn’t fix that problem–updated voter rolls would.
If you want more examples, I would refer to you to a political science text or article. Electoral systems are well studied.
It’s funny that “Republicans” are offering bills that exponentially increase the cost to the state…
What happened to fiscal conservatism?
In the first three years of implementation the requirement of a photo id to vote will cost the state $17.1 million dollars. There has not been a single case of voter fraud where a vote has been counted toward an election in contemporary Missouri. There are over 60 laws on the books to punish fraud. Missouri does not need this requirement and the alarming trend that this bill points to still stands – the death of fiscal conservatism in the Republican party in Missouri.
Take a look at tax credits. Initially offered to businesses as a way to “compete” with surrounding states (i.e. Kansas) Missouri loses over $700 million dollars a year to tax credits. Even more frightening, Missouri owes $2.1 BILLION in unpaid tax credits. These credits can be used to turn a company’s financial life from failing to fantastic (unrewarded credits can be sold for 90 cents on the dollar in intermediate markets). These tax credits are preferential treatment from a government playing business favoritism. What happened to the free market?
Before creating unnecessary big-government-burden on Missouri citizens Republicans should take a long hard look at themselves and ask, why are we passing these bills? Does this fit with my ideology?
The resounding answer is NO.