Voter ID Laws

[varjohaltia]

I've been listening to news about the controversy regarding Voter ID laws for a while now, and frankly, I'm ready to express my opinion on the matter (rant.)

In a perfect world, people wouldn't need government photo ID, much like things used to be in Great Britain surprisingly recently. We are not living in a perfect world. I need a government photo ID to go to my dentist, to pay with a credit card, to drive a vehicle, to attend the university, to travel by air domestically or in any fashion internationally, to visit the FBI, to homestead my property, to get my own medical records, to open a bank account, to cash a check, to rent a mail box... you probably get the idea.

Requiring a person to prove their identity when voting is common sense. Even requiring a person to have an ID is not unreasonable. I'd rather it wasn't that way, but you cannot function in today's society without one. Mind you, there's a difference between having ID and having to produce ID. There shouldn't be any right for a anyone to require ID unless it is to protect your information or money, or unless there's a real law-enforcement need. Looking or acting suspicious isn't real need.

Yes, the purpose behind a lot of these laws is undoubtedly political, underhanded, and specifically targeted against Democrats. No, there hasn't been any documented abuse that these laws would in fact fix. Yet the end of the day, I find the requirement that voters prove who they are when voting perfectly reasonable. Having an ID is not an undue burden. Quit whining about it, and start spending your energy figuring out what keeps people from getting IDs and improving the system of granting IDs, or at the very least making the rest of the voting system resistant against much more egregious violations.

Comments

[kemono-art.livejournal.com]

I agree. It feels very odd when I go to the polls and I -don't- have to show my photo-ID, I just sign the book by my name after presenting my voter ID card and there we go.

From what I've gathered, my stance would be that yes, we should require some form of identification, which brings up the whole idea of having state-issued (rather than federal) photo ID cards for everyone. The trouble comes when figuring out how to go about handing those IDs out. The state specifically in question during the supreme court arguments offers free IDs, if I remember what I heard correctly, but the trouble was proving one was one's self without having the other forms of proof like birth certificate, social security card, etc., which are not necessarily easy to obtain nor are they necessarily free.

I think that given that voting is a right and registering to vote is free (if I recall correctly), we should require the identification at that time (don't we already require that?), and issue a photo-ID voters registration card instead of the paper cards we have right now (at least in Florida). The card remains with you unless you need to have it amended (change of party affiliation, address, etc.) just like you would a driver's license.

Doing this would cost tax-payer money, however, and there's a good chance the states will screw it up (touch screen voting anyone? no paper-trail included), but perhaps this will put the issue to rest.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

"Yes, the purpose behind a lot of these laws is undoubtedly political, underhanded, and specifically targeted against Democrats."

lolwut - are Democrats more likely not to be carrying ID or something?

[varjohaltia.livejournal.com]

Yes. The laws are specifically seen as targeting the poor, who tend to vote Democrat.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Poor people don't have IDs?

I don't get it - when we first moved to Florida my mother made $7k a year and supported three children. For years, we were, by most metrics, dirt poor. But my mother always had an ID...? Where is this idea coming from? IDs don't cost money, and there are poor of all political stripe.

[varjohaltia.livejournal.com]

Well, first of, in many places (like Florida) IDs do cost money, even if some states have made a point to offer them for free. That's a bit pedantic, though, because I think even $10 to be a reasonable fee. More specifically though, the arguments presented in the news have been that the documents required to obtain the ID, such as certified birth certificates, can be costly. The argument also goes that many of the poor people don't have transportation to get to the DMV offices, nor the ability to take time off work to do so. And so forth. I'm back to thinking that keeping essential paperwork about yourself in order is your own responsibility. I'm not sure what to think of the size of the affected population -- significant, say the Democrats, insignificant say the Republicans. And yes, this is painting with an artificially broad brush, because there are people in both camps favoring and opposing this thing. Once you toss in the tax subsidies for free cards and education and what not, and try to figure out who put those in the laws, it's just a giant mess.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

I understand that this is coming from other people and not you, it just sounds like a terribly forced argument that wouldn't stand much scrutiny, a function of the, "We need protection for our practice of rounding up bums and riding them into voting centers, giving them a few donuts, and telling them who to vote for" school of American politics, which I witnessed first-hand when my mother worked for a (Democratic, coincidentally, though I'm sure it happens all over) state senator.

As an aside, I think if someone is so apart from society as to not even have an ID, whatever their politics, they have pretty much tossed themselves out of the responsible voter pool anyway. I don't have much faith that someone who simply can't manage the rudimentary societal associations of having an ID is even capable of making an informed vote, but that's me. ;)

[varjohaltia.livejournal.com]

You made the point, so I don't have to ;-)

[varjohaltia.livejournal.com]

Here's a link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321180,00.html) presenting some of the talking points. And yes, this is politically polarized people arguing with statistics. I think a food fight at a fish factory would be more reasonable.

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Ok - I just know it's not like you to say something like, "Yes, the purpose behind a lot of these laws is undoubtedly political, underhanded, and specifically targeted against Democrats." without some scrutiny and critical thought. You are more intellectually curious than that! :)

[varjohaltia.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm a bit jaded here. I do believe, without any real proof, mind you, that the motivation behind these laws is nefarious and based on the assumption that at least some of the arguments are true, and that there's consequently a benefit to be gained. All the effort put into drafting these laws to prevent a problem that doesn't exist seems a bit silly. However, I also think it's a mistaken premise, and in the end there won't be much of an effect, other than a ton of hot air and mud slinging. In other words, I think both parties to the argument are silly, opinionated and misguided. Much as I might be :-)

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

That's possible; personally I believe this is to address the enormous problem of voter fraud because it's a bureaucratic nightmare.

As the 2000 election showed us, having ambiguity as to the results is quite destabilizing, time-consuming, and expensive. It's absolutely essential that "One man, one vote" be upheld, especially when races come down to the few thousands or hundreds of votes, and the critical path in this is identifying that the person who dropped that ballot in the box or punched that key was, in fact, a legitimate voter.

[varjohaltia.livejournal.com]

That's a core reason why I think arguing against these laws is silly. Details aside, the concept is very valid, because the integrity of the voting system is a bedrock of any democratic system, and in the U.S. it has been suffering some. I do buy the argument that absentee voting fraud, voter list inaccuracies and back-end inaccuracies (mistakes, malfunctions and the possibility of evildoing) are a bigger issue than people falsely voting -- but that doesn't mean that asking people to identify themselves when voting is unnecessary. If anything, psychologically, it might have a TSA-like effect of giving people more trust in the system. (Allright, I'm really much too jaded to be writing this!)

[elusivetiger.livejournal.com]

Don't get jaded, please! You have the potential to be a good American voter because you are willing to think, something always difficult in the passions of politics and in somewhat short supply in any voting population.

[panzerbane01.livejournal.com]

Well, considering last election they had a large amount of people voting for the Republican Party from beyond the grave (There actually was a huge scandal about how so many "deceased" people could be voting) and then they completely ignored entire areas or "Lost" the voting registry.

Why not issue free ID cards to everyone and then have them punch into the voting booths by swiping their card? ID confirmed, no need to "produce it" to anyone but the voting machine and bam, less chance for fraud.

Oh by the way, HI! (Tai's friend Matt, here)