7 ms·

Can Americans explain why voter ID is seen to be disenfranchising or sometimes inarticulately simplified as "racist"? Voter ID is mandatory in so many parts of

Can Americans explain why voter ID is seen to be disenfranchising or sometimes inarticulately simplified as "racist"? Voter ID is mandatory in so many parts of the world. What are the rest of us missing? Edit: Not that it matters, but I live in India, so "poor people can't get ID" confuses me even further.

tobylane 8y ago
Where white people live it's easy to get ID, and white people are more likely to have it for other reasons. Where black people live it's harder to get ID, and black people are less likely to have it for other reasons. Both are minor differences.
vowelless 8y ago
Best case interpretation from my vantage point: bigotry of low expectations. Apparently some people believe that poor people or minorities in America find it harder than even the poorest Indians to go get identification.
- fareesh 8y ago
  I am from India, which is why I find this especially confusing - hence my motivation for asking
- brewrwe 8y ago
  Aadhaar isn't a beacon of hope, the reason the poorest Indians are getting Aadhaar at all is to survive as the government of India forces it down people's throats, denying their benefits and even existence as real people if they don't have Aadhaar. Lets not even touch the attempts at demonetization as of late, these policies haven't created a stable environment in India. https://m.rediff.com/news/column/the-giant-mess-called-aadhaar/20180116.htm https://m.rediff.com/news/column/the-giant-mess-called-aadha...
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    The poorest people in the US also need ID cards to just survive too, try to get any sort of government benefits without being able to prove who you are.
    - brewrwe 8y ago
      Generally you can get by without photo ID, your Social Security card is much more important to have wrt benefits and employment.
- spuz 8y ago
  It's not bigotry if the numbers prove it out. Almost every politician who wants voter IDs is a Republican and almost every politician who opposes IDs is a Democrat. If it would have no effect on voter behaviour you would not expect such a clean divide of opinion amongst party members.
- pgeorgi 8y ago
  That interpretation only works if the infrastructure to obtain ID in India and the US is of somewhat similar quality. Given America's love-hate relationship with well-maintained infrastructure ("my tax money may end up benefitting somebody else?!?"), and given how ID is optional for most aspects of American live, it wouldn't surprise me if India's system is significantly better organized (although people will certainly find enough to complain about, as always).
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    You clearly have no idea what bureaucracy in third world countries is like
    - pgeorgi 8y ago
      Even if the process is onerous having one is miles ahead for the purpose of identifying eligible voters compared to the American system which barely knows who exists within the country, much less where they live.
      - rohit2412 8y ago
        Isn't this reasoning cyclic? You can't have an id in USA because the current system doesn't have a list of people with their addresses? So the current system needs to be a system of all the people and their addresses, including citizens, with some sort of unique identifier for quick retrieval? You know, an id?
        pgeorgi 8y ago
        It's cyclic, yes, but only because we went off on a tangent. The US isn't prepared for that because they refuse to have a registry of their citizens. India has one (or two, currently). Therefore "infrastructure to obtain ID in India and the US is of somewhat similar quality" is false. Therefore "Apparently some people believe that poor people or minorities in America find it harder than even the poorest Indians to go get identification" is a false equivalence: The poorest of all Indians still have a government that keeps track of the data required to vote (whatever fault it may have in other ways). Americans do not and therefore have to work around the no-registration policy with an ad-hoc registration procedure every two years that might require significant hoop-jumping - which is easier when you have some extraneous time and/or money you can throw at the problem (that is, you're not poor).
wl 8y ago
The really poor in the US don't tend to have ID. They often can't afford to take the time off work to go through the process of obtaining it, especially if they don't drive. Additionally, it's an extra expense some people can't afford. Also, voter fraud isn't much of an issue in the US, so it's a solution to a problem we don't really have. Sometimes I wish those crying voter suppression would amend voter ID proposals to make getting ID free and easy and just put this whole issue to bed. Unfortunately with REAL ID, things are only going to get more difficult and expensive.
- zapita 8y ago
  > it's a solution to a problem we don't really have I would add that it's also used to deflect (or in some cases shout down) discussions of mass voter disenfranchisement, which actually exists and undermines US democracy in a meaningful way. Try bringing up gerrymandering, voter purging, shortening of early voting and holiday/week-end voting, selective use of overwhelming police presence with a US reactionary and count the seconds before they make voter ID the center of the conversation.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Someone I know was complaining recently about getting the first driver's license for their kid. Apparently, the state was looking for proof of residence like utility bills that the kid obviously didn't have. Presumably it was all eventually resolved but it took a couple of trips and many hours--and this was for someone of a demographic one wouldn't expect to have any issues.
- ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
  The "can't take time off work" excuse doesn't work either, since you need valid ID to work. One that says your a citizen, and one with your picture (or just your passport, since it's both). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter16-3.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-...
  - wool_gather 8y ago
    That list of documents is not the same as those that are acceptable for voting.
huntertwo 8y ago
Identification is hard to acquire in many parts of the United States, especially for poor people. Enforcing some sort of voter ID would prevent many poor people from voting, who are disproportionately poc. In other countries, ID is not difficult to acquire, in some cases acquired at birth or at a very young age.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
  FWIW as a HN reader and user here to offer some (of course anecdotal) perspective: I am a resident of Texas and they make it a definite inconvenience to register to vote. It’s 2018 and I have to print something off and mail it to my county to register. That means I have to know who to mail it to, have stamps, know the correct form to print off and have a permanent mailing address to receive correspondence to be able to complete the process (on top of all the other identification requirements detailed elsewhere). Now I know that isn’t a big deal to a lot of people here but there are a ton of people around where I live that it would be a significant enough barrier to entry to the point where they just wouldn’t bother. Compare this to some other states that make it super easy (Oregon comes to mind) and look at their voter fraud rates vs TX and you start to wonder if there is some ulterior motive at play here.
detaro 8y ago
Not American, but from my understanding it is because US citizens don't have mandatory ID documents. If getting documents necessary to vote is voluntary but requires time and money, going to an office in the next bigger town, bringing documents not everyone might have, ..., disadvantaged people have a harder time to obtain them and are less likely to have them. If you get ID automatically or are required to hold it in other parts of life, it's less of a hurdle.
- chapium 8y ago
  I always hear this, but getting a state issued ID is ridiculously easy and it fulfills ID requirements.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - KC8ZKF 8y ago
    And costs $14, at least in Ohio.
  - dyeje 8y ago
    It's not hard but I wouldn't call it 'ridiculously easy'. In Michigan, you need to supply minimum four documents. One of which is for proof residency which can be really hard for a homeless person.
  - adjkant 8y ago
    Take NYC for example: To apply for a photo ID card, you must: Be a citizen or a legal resident of the U.S. Be a resident of New York State. Have your original birth certificate. Have your Social Security card. Be able to provide enough documents to verify your identity. https://www.dmv.org/ny-new-york/id-cards.php https://www.dmv.org/ny-new-york/id-cards.php That's far from easy, and it's very easy to imagine scenarios where one lacks one or more of those. Proving residency can be hard, and is impossible for those who are homeless. The homeless have a right to vote.
    - 8y ago
adjkant 8y ago
Easy access to getting ID. If you don't drive (many poorer people don't have access to either a car or education on how to drive one) getting an ID is surprisingly hard. If it was a mandatory law that all people are given a national ID card and it was made readily available, then I think much criticism would go away. But in the current state of laws, poor people struggle to get ID, minorities are poorer statistically, and more poor people are Democrats statistically. Hence why it becomes a partisan issue in a similar way of gerrymandering. The second part of this is the obvious motivation - with voter fraud being so low as to be nonexistent (as shown with recent news about the "voter fraud" committee that has done and found absolutely nothing), what is the motivation for the laws given how many people it would negatively affect?
- adjkant 8y ago
  This is just presenting factual information, how is this being downvoted?
  - rectang 8y ago
    The subject is very polarizing, and posts which explicitly name political parties tend to rile things up. I suggest talking about politically polarizing matters in terms of interests. For example, "Voter ID laws as implemented in the USA tend to result in diminished participation by poor people because [explanation]. Such laws tend to be favored by those who benefit from poor people voting less, and opposed by those who benefit from poor people voting more." This depersonalizes the conflict a bit, and allows us to have the kind of insightful debates that HN is for.
dkskskdkxmzn 8y ago
Places where voter ID policies are unproblematic have ubiquitous national ID cards possessed by every citizen. The United States famously does not have a national ID card, and instead uses a patchwork of state level IDs which require different levels of effort and cost to acquire. Many citizens do not have a legal ID at all, and some citizens even lack the paperwork necessary to acquire them under current law. If every voter had an ID, or if the government went to great lengths to ensure that every citizen could get one, voter ID laws wouldn't be problem. But as it stands voter ID laws prevent hundreds of thousands of citizens from voting, and those citizens are disproportionately poor and racial minorities, meaning that voter ID requirements have deeply distortionary effects on the composition of the voting electorate.
- gambiting 8y ago
  So how do you know someone is who they say they are? If someone is born and never acquires a nationally issued ID, how can they even prove they are american and have the right to be there?
  - KC8ZKF 8y ago
    In the US, there is a presumption that you have a right to be where you are. It's up to the authorities to demonstrate otherwise. Supposedly.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    If they were born in the US, they should have a social security number and be able to obtain a birth certificate. If your birth was never registered? That can be a problem. https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/invisible-girl/ https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/invisible-girl/ And I imagine if, as an adult, you don't have a birth certificate, aren't sure where you were born, and don't know your social security number, things can start to be difficult.
    - cm2012 8y ago
      Yeah, my wife's mom changed her name twice as a baby without saving any docs about it, so her passport doesn't match her birth certificate. It's a horrifying pain in the ass.
cm2012 8y ago
Basically, even now the party in power makes it as hard as possible for the minority power to vote. Making elections on work days, registration required 6+ months before election day, understaffing polling places in certain districts, changing polling places, etc. This has a nasty history going back to the jim crow days. That, mixed with the fact that in person polling fraud pretty much never happens, means we shouldn't want another tool in the hands of disenfranchisers.
- jacobolus 8y ago
  It turns out that the history of these tactics goes back to the northern states using them to disenfranchise new immigrants in the second half of the 19th century (they didn’t want Irish, Italian, German, Polish, ... immigrants voting). Later white southerners who wanted to disenfranchise blacks were inspired by their example, and took voting suppression to new heights. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/todays-voter-suppression-tactics-have-a-150-year-history https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/todays-voter-suppressi...
mc32 8y ago
It’s just politics, trying to get brownie points. If you're poor you probably need a state ID moreso than richer folks. Any benefits need IDs, school you need ID, medicare/medicaid you need IDs, etc. Basically any state or federal benefits require an ID. Controlled goods like cigs and beer require ID.
NegativeK 8y ago
All of the sibling comments mention that it's unfortunately difficult for some people, but from the other direction: voter ID requirements solve a problem (fraud) that doesn't exist.
js2 8y ago
If it didn’t suppress Democratic votes then you wouldn’t have Republican politicians nearly universally in favor and Democratic politicians nearly universally opposed. I take that as prima facie evidence. We have the same debate with early voting, how long polling places are open, and where they are located. For whatever reason, conservative voters tend to be more motivated to vote. So any friction in the voting process tends to disproportionately affect Democrats. As an aside, there are structurally racist policies that suppress Democratic votes both historically and today. To give one example, most states do not allow exconvicts to vote. As to why many Americans are opposed? Because for so long this country has tried to prevent anyone but white men from voting. Besides that, voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. There’s just not a plausible way to commit large scale fraud at the polls. You’d have to round up bus loads of people willing to commit voter fraud, take them from polling place to place, then have them sign their names as some other voter on the rolls at that polling location and hope that the real voter hasn’t and won’t show up to vote. I lack the imagination to see how this could occur without detection. In any case, what everyone should actually be concerned with is that the voting system accurately captures the will of the people. In which case, voter fraud at the polls, in America, is the least of our problems. Our attention should be focused on things gerrymandering, first past the post, and for presidential elections, the electoral college, among other issues.
- garrettgrimsley 8y ago
  >To give one example, most states do not allow exconvicts to vote Almost all states do allow exconvicts to vote, but they may have to wait a certain period of time after release from custody/probation/parole. “In 13 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored” [0] Personally, I’ll be allowed to vote again in 2021. [0] http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-v...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
madengr 8y ago
It’s only disenfranchisement for those who desire votes from illegal aliens, and individuals who illegally vote more than once (alive or dead). The fact is anyone can vote on a provisional ballot, and if the verified ballots provided a close enough race, the provisional ballots are scrutinized and counted. This is presently happening in KS with 10k provisional ballots which could skew a 96 ballot spread amongst almost 300k. Those whining about disenfranchisement simply want fraudulent votes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot
rflrob 8y ago
So for one thing, which doesn't directly address the question, voter ID laws are being pushed for the most part from one side of the political spectrum, and some of those have acknowledged that they are doing it with a partisan goal [1]. So given that it's pushed by only one side, with no clear evidence that it's trying to solve a widespread problem, it smells to those on the other side that they are trying to win elections not by advancing the better argument, but by keeping their opponents away from the polls. As to why it's seen as disenfranchising, there are no general requirements in the United States to have a form of ID to exist in daily life. Poorer people who live in cities are less likely to have the resources or need to own a car, and if you don't own a car, why would you have a driver's license, which requires spending potentially hours at the local motor vehicle department, getting access to documents like birth certificates (which may well be in another state), and paying a fee [2]. Some states have free state photo IDs, but many do not, and even those IDs take some time and effort to get. Estimates of how many people are deterred from the polls because of lack of ID are tricky, and while the numbers are fairly low, America was founded on the idea of liberty and justice for all. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...
ethbro 8y ago
Due to the necessity of personal automobile transportation in most US cities (poor public transit infrastructure), many Americans have state driver's licenses (~87%). We do not have a national ID card. Consequently, many voter ID laws presume that all voters will have a driver's license as a form of ID (or even less likely forms, such as a passport or birth certificate). While there are non-license forms of ID that can be obtained, all of these are bureaucratic processes. Driver's license IDs are problematic for two reasons: (1) poorer and/or minority Americans are less likely to have a driver's than wealthy and/or white Americans (by ~5%) & (2) poorer and/or minority Americans are far more likely to have their driver's licenses taken (due to policing and economic inabilities to pay court fines or other charges). Voter ID laws thus (1) create additional barriers for minority or poor Americans to vote, (2) are legal (in that aren't directly suppressing minority voting), (3) do not impact wealthy white voters.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Can Americans explain why voter ID is seen to be disenfranchising or sometimes inarticulately simplified as "racist"? It adds a barrier to voting. We don’t like having to trust our government to be benevolent—the track record of such populations is poor. The risk of voter fraud (in the form of people who shouldn’t be voting, voting) is low. The ease of forging an ID is high. The risk of tyranny therefore dominates (I enter the massive corruption and security gaps in India’s Aadhar program as Exhibit A.)
sonnyblarney 8y ago
It's not objectively racist, but contextually, it kind of is, because a) some parties have definitely used these kinds of things for voter suppression and b) systematically, all of these hurdles tend to favour concientious folks, i.e. 'small c conservative', who have a tendency to be more right wing. So it does tilt things a little bit even if it's entirely objective. Having an ID is important for so many reasons, it'd be great if the US gov had a standard state/federal ID system that could facilitate so many things. Of course it would also be abused :)
ninkendo 8y ago
I don't really ever see anyone say it's racist, so even just bringing that up isn't likely to lead to a productive discussion. But what people do often say, rightly, is that of the population who would don't have ID's and thus wouldn't be able to vote if you enacted a voter ID law, they're disproportionally likely to vote democrat. You can take from that what you want, but it's almost entirely republicans who are for voter ID and almost entirely democrats who are against it. That's not a coincidence. Combine that with the fact that voter ID doesn't actually solve any current problems we have (in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent), it just seems like a distraction when what we should be having is a real conversation about the actual security of our election systems from hacking. (EDIT: s/democrats/likely to vote democrat/;)
- fareesh 8y ago
  What method is used to check to see if voter fraud exists? I am reading here that there are 61,000 homeless people in New York City. How do they vote currently? If it's possible to verify their citizenship after they have voted, can't the same verification process be used to give them an ID? I see this "voter fraud is virtually non existent" argument frequently but I cannot understand the logistics of it.
  - ninkendo 8y ago
    Currently, in order to vote, you have to register to vote ahead of time. If I show up at the polls and successfully impersonate Person A, they cross Person A off the list of pre-registered voters, and I vote as them. But then, if Person A showed up, they would say "we already crossed you off the list", and it would trigger what we would call an "instance of in-person voter fraud." How they found out which person voted fraudulently doesn't really matter for my point, because: In a recent 14-year period, this has happened about thirty-one times across the whole US, according to wikipedia. (Source is here: [1]) Basically, it's easy to do, but also extremely easy to detect, so in practice nobody does it. It's not currently a significant factor in the security of our elections. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/the-disconnect-between-voter-id-laws-and-voter-fraud/?utm_term=.cc02227f9f8d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/th...
colemannugent 8y ago
Surprised nobody's mentioned this yet: The most common form of ID in the US is a driver's license. To get one you need to meet a bunch of requirements and then take a driving test at a local branch of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). If you are ever looking for a great example of government inefficiency it's the DMV offices [1]. All of them run horribly, most have massive wait times for simple procedures, and the employees have a reputation for not giving a shit. Not to say all of them run like this, but in California it's so bad that the government officials have their own secret DMV office to avoid waits [2]. If you were a poor person who really only has the value of their physical labor to feed your family you might not want to waste spend hours and hours of your incredibly (relatively) valuable time for something you can make do without. Since these poor people are often minorities voter ID laws disproportionately affect them. The question of racism being a factor for supporters of voter ID is kinda muddied. Voter ID laws seem to make a ton of sense on the surface, but a little bit of knowledge about the American election system makes it clear that voter fraud is really not a big problem. There's no doubt that racists would support voter ID laws as they do suppress the election turnout of the poor, but I haven't seen any evidence that racial factors contribute to the majority of people's support for voter ID laws. Like every topic in US politics, it has become hyper-polarized to the point where both sides talk past each other to try to demonize their opponents. [1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-DMV-so-slow https://www.quora.com/Why-is-DMV-so-slow [2]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article216408570.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...
- Redoubts 8y ago
  > The most common form of ID in the US is a driver's license. It's the most common, but not the only one. You can just show up and ask for a plain ID, and avoid all that. And I kinda have to wonder how people get their I-9 filled out without any form of ID. You generally need an ID just to work in this country.
  - TomMckenny 8y ago
    There are states where you have to show a utility bill to get one of these.
dizzystar 8y ago
They can get an ID. You can't even get a legal job without a state-issued ID and federal social security number. If it's racist, well...
phil248 8y ago
Requiring an ID is a barrier to voting. Maybe not a particularly burdensome one, but it's still a burden that can prevent people from participating in elections. Better to err on the side of expanding access to the democratic process, instead of restricting it. Particularly since voter fraud is not a very enticing crime, or a very common one. The 'racist' angle comes from various court rulings that have stated that certain laws intended to restrict voting rights disproportionately impacted people of color. One particular ruling in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Texas state law which banned student IDs as acceptable voter ID was racially discriminating against people of color.
- Covzire 8y ago
  I don't buy this argument at all. Maybe 75 years ago, but today, without an ID your quality of life is going to be extremely low. Plus, the number of people who are might be affected is most likely dwarfed by the number of fraudulent votes that happen every single election, but that some people would rather not try to prevent.
  - dan-robertson 8y ago
    Why should you not be able to vote just because your quality of life is low? Evidence suggests that the number of fraudulent votes is very low in the US (although the number of legitimate votes is also low)
    - Covzire 8y ago
      Some precincts will hand you a ballot by only providing a name of a registered voter, no proof required. How do you audit something like this to even know something went wrong?
      - mrsteveman1 8y ago
        If you're referring to provisional ballots, those precincts generally require the person to return to the board of elections within 10 days and provide some form of ID. If you're referring to a normal ballot, I've not seen anywhere that doesn't require some proof of residence and identity, like a very recent bank statement matching the registered address for that voter. For that to be an issue, someone would have to: 1) Obtain a recent bank statement for a registered voter 2) Show up, in person, at the correct polling location 3) Commit a felony by lying to the poll workers and voting illegally 4) Hope nobody who knows the real person hears them claim to be that person 5) Hope the person doesn't show up and try to vote
walshemj 8y ago
I assume you are asking in good faith but that is a big ask - yes it is "racist"
yardie 8y ago
It goes back to Civil Rights era activities and the Voters Rights Act. It's been slow ratchet effect of constantly changing requirements. First they require ID even if you are a registered voter. On the surface this isn't so bad. Then they only accept certain forms of ID. The accepted forms of ID are only available from certain departmental offices, like the DMV. Those offices have their own ID requirements to get their acceptable ID. They also are understaffed with limited office hours (10-4PM and 2 hours lunch). Due to budget cuts they also have fewer offices that can create your ID. So the simple act of voting becomes a catch-22 of needing ID but not being able to even get ID.
nkurz 8y ago
This is a good question, but you should realize that it's a very contentious issue in the US. Most people will assume that you are "trolling" even though you are likely asking genuinely. Explaining from scratch, the US has two approximately equally dominant political parties. It is presumed (by both sides, and probably correctly) that reducing the ID requirements will primarily benefit the more urban Democratic Party, and that making the requirements more stringent will benefit the more rural Republican party. Possibly motivated by self-interest, the result is that about half the population believes that requiring greater voter ID is "obviously" a good thing, and about half believes that it is equally "obviously" a bad thing. The side in favor ID expresses this with concerns about fraudulent voting, and the side against ID talks about disenfranchisement.
- pas 8y ago
  Any other form of ID? Is there some sort of proactive movement that tries to make this a non-issue by making people get usable IDs?
  - nkurz 8y ago
    The problem is that anything that changes the number of voters is going to change election outcomes, and both sides think they know in advance the direction of the change. Thus rather than making it a "non-issue", any movement toward or away from universal ID is correctly perceived to have disparate partisan impact. This doesn't mean it's impossible, but makes it much more likely to be opposed by side who thinks it will hurt them politically. A change to the situation will likely involve either one side getting sufficiently far ahead to be able to change the rules further toward their advantage, or will involve a change in the perception such that both sides think that the same change will be to their side's benefit. But since these decisions are made on a state-by-state basis, any change will likely be incremental rather than all at once.
    - pas 8y ago
      I especially meant a movement within the Dem Party, to make them more resilient to potential upcoming voter ID laws?
MicroBerto 8y ago
Because you cannot commit voter fraud nearly as easily with Voter ID, and a disturbing portion of the nation and establishment media (and their purse holders) will tell you literally anything that can stick to the wall in an attempt to continue to hijack the nation. It is horrendously racist to claim that any race is "incapable" to be able to get an ID, and the math doesn't work out in its favor anyway. But it's the current argument du jour that allows the power to be removed from the people, so it continues to play. Anything else discussed in this thread with respect to the lack of American voter ID is just avoiding these facts. If the people want to take this nation back, they must pass voter ID and vote out (if they possibly can) those who oppose it.

tobylane 8y ago

Where white people live it's easy to get ID, and white people are more likely to have it for other reasons. Where black people live it's harder to get ID, and black people are less likely to have it for other reasons. Both are minor differences.

vowelless 8y ago

Best case interpretation from my vantage point: bigotry of low expectations. Apparently some people believe that poor people or minorities in America find it harder than even the poorest Indians to go get identification.

fareesh 8y ago
I am from India, which is why I find this especially confusing - hence my motivation for asking
brewrwe 8y ago
Aadhaar isn't a beacon of hope, the reason the poorest Indians are getting Aadhaar at all is to survive as the government of India forces it down people's throats, denying their benefits and even existence as real people if they don't have Aadhaar. Lets not even touch the attempts at demonetization as of late, these policies haven't created a stable environment in India. https://m.rediff.com/news/column/the-giant-mess-called-aadhaar/20180116.htm https://m.rediff.com/news/column/the-giant-mess-called-aadha...
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  The poorest people in the US also need ID cards to just survive too, try to get any sort of government benefits without being able to prove who you are.
  - brewrwe 8y ago
    Generally you can get by without photo ID, your Social Security card is much more important to have wrt benefits and employment.
spuz 8y ago
It's not bigotry if the numbers prove it out. Almost every politician who wants voter IDs is a Republican and almost every politician who opposes IDs is a Democrat. If it would have no effect on voter behaviour you would not expect such a clean divide of opinion amongst party members.
pgeorgi 8y ago
That interpretation only works if the infrastructure to obtain ID in India and the US is of somewhat similar quality. Given America's love-hate relationship with well-maintained infrastructure ("my tax money may end up benefitting somebody else?!?"), and given how ID is optional for most aspects of American live, it wouldn't surprise me if India's system is significantly better organized (although people will certainly find enough to complain about, as always).
- rohit2412 8y ago
  You clearly have no idea what bureaucracy in third world countries is like
  - pgeorgi 8y ago
    Even if the process is onerous having one is miles ahead for the purpose of identifying eligible voters compared to the American system which barely knows who exists within the country, much less where they live.
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      Isn't this reasoning cyclic? You can't have an id in USA because the current system doesn't have a list of people with their addresses? So the current system needs to be a system of all the people and their addresses, including citizens, with some sort of unique identifier for quick retrieval? You know, an id?
      - pgeorgi 8y ago
        It's cyclic, yes, but only because we went off on a tangent. The US isn't prepared for that because they refuse to have a registry of their citizens. India has one (or two, currently). Therefore "infrastructure to obtain ID in India and the US is of somewhat similar quality" is false. Therefore "Apparently some people believe that poor people or minorities in America find it harder than even the poorest Indians to go get identification" is a false equivalence: The poorest of all Indians still have a government that keeps track of the data required to vote (whatever fault it may have in other ways). Americans do not and therefore have to work around the no-registration policy with an ad-hoc registration procedure every two years that might require significant hoop-jumping - which is easier when you have some extraneous time and/or money you can throw at the problem (that is, you're not poor).

wl 8y ago

The really poor in the US don't tend to have ID. They often can't afford to take the time off work to go through the process of obtaining it, especially if they don't drive. Additionally, it's an extra expense some people can't afford. Also, voter fraud isn't much of an issue in the US, so it's a solution to a problem we don't really have. Sometimes I wish those crying voter suppression would amend voter ID proposals to make getting ID free and easy and just put this whole issue to bed. Unfortunately with REAL ID, things are only going to get more difficult and expensive.

zapita 8y ago
> it's a solution to a problem we don't really have I would add that it's also used to deflect (or in some cases shout down) discussions of mass voter disenfranchisement, which actually exists and undermines US democracy in a meaningful way. Try bringing up gerrymandering, voter purging, shortening of early voting and holiday/week-end voting, selective use of overwhelming police presence with a US reactionary and count the seconds before they make voter ID the center of the conversation.
ghaff 8y ago
Someone I know was complaining recently about getting the first driver's license for their kid. Apparently, the state was looking for proof of residence like utility bills that the kid obviously didn't have. Presumably it was all eventually resolved but it took a couple of trips and many hours--and this was for someone of a demographic one wouldn't expect to have any issues.
ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
The "can't take time off work" excuse doesn't work either, since you need valid ID to work. One that says your a citizen, and one with your picture (or just your passport, since it's both). https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter16-3.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-...
- wool_gather 8y ago
  That list of documents is not the same as those that are acceptable for voting.

huntertwo 8y ago

Identification is hard to acquire in many parts of the United States, especially for poor people. Enforcing some sort of voter ID would prevent many poor people from voting, who are disproportionately poc. In other countries, ID is not difficult to acquire, in some cases acquired at birth or at a very young age.

SOLAR_FIELDS 8y ago
FWIW as a HN reader and user here to offer some (of course anecdotal) perspective: I am a resident of Texas and they make it a definite inconvenience to register to vote. It’s 2018 and I have to print something off and mail it to my county to register. That means I have to know who to mail it to, have stamps, know the correct form to print off and have a permanent mailing address to receive correspondence to be able to complete the process (on top of all the other identification requirements detailed elsewhere). Now I know that isn’t a big deal to a lot of people here but there are a ton of people around where I live that it would be a significant enough barrier to entry to the point where they just wouldn’t bother. Compare this to some other states that make it super easy (Oregon comes to mind) and look at their voter fraud rates vs TX and you start to wonder if there is some ulterior motive at play here.

detaro 8y ago

Not American, but from my understanding it is because US citizens don't have mandatory ID documents. If getting documents necessary to vote is voluntary but requires time and money, going to an office in the next bigger town, bringing documents not everyone might have, ..., disadvantaged people have a harder time to obtain them and are less likely to have them. If you get ID automatically or are required to hold it in other parts of life, it's less of a hurdle.

chapium 8y ago
I always hear this, but getting a state issued ID is ridiculously easy and it fulfills ID requirements.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- KC8ZKF 8y ago
  And costs $14, at least in Ohio.
- dyeje 8y ago
  It's not hard but I wouldn't call it 'ridiculously easy'. In Michigan, you need to supply minimum four documents. One of which is for proof residency which can be really hard for a homeless person.
- adjkant 8y ago
  Take NYC for example: To apply for a photo ID card, you must: Be a citizen or a legal resident of the U.S. Be a resident of New York State. Have your original birth certificate. Have your Social Security card. Be able to provide enough documents to verify your identity. https://www.dmv.org/ny-new-york/id-cards.php https://www.dmv.org/ny-new-york/id-cards.php That's far from easy, and it's very easy to imagine scenarios where one lacks one or more of those. Proving residency can be hard, and is impossible for those who are homeless. The homeless have a right to vote.
  - 8y ago

adjkant 8y ago

Easy access to getting ID. If you don't drive (many poorer people don't have access to either a car or education on how to drive one) getting an ID is surprisingly hard. If it was a mandatory law that all people are given a national ID card and it was made readily available, then I think much criticism would go away. But in the current state of laws, poor people struggle to get ID, minorities are poorer statistically, and more poor people are Democrats statistically. Hence why it becomes a partisan issue in a similar way of gerrymandering. The second part of this is the obvious motivation - with voter fraud being so low as to be nonexistent (as shown with recent news about the "voter fraud" committee that has done and found absolutely nothing), what is the motivation for the laws given how many people it would negatively affect?

adjkant 8y ago
This is just presenting factual information, how is this being downvoted?
- rectang 8y ago
  The subject is very polarizing, and posts which explicitly name political parties tend to rile things up. I suggest talking about politically polarizing matters in terms of interests. For example, "Voter ID laws as implemented in the USA tend to result in diminished participation by poor people because [explanation]. Such laws tend to be favored by those who benefit from poor people voting less, and opposed by those who benefit from poor people voting more." This depersonalizes the conflict a bit, and allows us to have the kind of insightful debates that HN is for.

dkskskdkxmzn 8y ago

Places where voter ID policies are unproblematic have ubiquitous national ID cards possessed by every citizen. The United States famously does not have a national ID card, and instead uses a patchwork of state level IDs which require different levels of effort and cost to acquire. Many citizens do not have a legal ID at all, and some citizens even lack the paperwork necessary to acquire them under current law. If every voter had an ID, or if the government went to great lengths to ensure that every citizen could get one, voter ID laws wouldn't be problem. But as it stands voter ID laws prevent hundreds of thousands of citizens from voting, and those citizens are disproportionately poor and racial minorities, meaning that voter ID requirements have deeply distortionary effects on the composition of the voting electorate.

gambiting 8y ago
So how do you know someone is who they say they are? If someone is born and never acquires a nationally issued ID, how can they even prove they are american and have the right to be there?
- KC8ZKF 8y ago
  In the US, there is a presumption that you have a right to be where you are. It's up to the authorities to demonstrate otherwise. Supposedly.
- ghaff 8y ago
  If they were born in the US, they should have a social security number and be able to obtain a birth certificate. If your birth was never registered? That can be a problem. https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/invisible-girl/ https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/invisible-girl/ And I imagine if, as an adult, you don't have a birth certificate, aren't sure where you were born, and don't know your social security number, things can start to be difficult.
  - cm2012 8y ago
    Yeah, my wife's mom changed her name twice as a baby without saving any docs about it, so her passport doesn't match her birth certificate. It's a horrifying pain in the ass.

cm2012 8y ago

Basically, even now the party in power makes it as hard as possible for the minority power to vote. Making elections on work days, registration required 6+ months before election day, understaffing polling places in certain districts, changing polling places, etc. This has a nasty history going back to the jim crow days. That, mixed with the fact that in person polling fraud pretty much never happens, means we shouldn't want another tool in the hands of disenfranchisers.

jacobolus 8y ago
It turns out that the history of these tactics goes back to the northern states using them to disenfranchise new immigrants in the second half of the 19th century (they didn’t want Irish, Italian, German, Polish, ... immigrants voting). Later white southerners who wanted to disenfranchise blacks were inspired by their example, and took voting suppression to new heights. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/todays-voter-suppression-tactics-have-a-150-year-history https://talkingpointsmemo.com/feature/todays-voter-suppressi...

mc32 8y ago

It’s just politics, trying to get brownie points. If you're poor you probably need a state ID moreso than richer folks. Any benefits need IDs, school you need ID, medicare/medicaid you need IDs, etc. Basically any state or federal benefits require an ID. Controlled goods like cigs and beer require ID.

NegativeK 8y ago

All of the sibling comments mention that it's unfortunately difficult for some people, but from the other direction: voter ID requirements solve a problem (fraud) that doesn't exist.

js2 8y ago

If it didn’t suppress Democratic votes then you wouldn’t have Republican politicians nearly universally in favor and Democratic politicians nearly universally opposed. I take that as prima facie evidence. We have the same debate with early voting, how long polling places are open, and where they are located. For whatever reason, conservative voters tend to be more motivated to vote. So any friction in the voting process tends to disproportionately affect Democrats. As an aside, there are structurally racist policies that suppress Democratic votes both historically and today. To give one example, most states do not allow exconvicts to vote. As to why many Americans are opposed? Because for so long this country has tried to prevent anyone but white men from voting. Besides that, voter ID is a solution in search of a problem. There’s just not a plausible way to commit large scale fraud at the polls. You’d have to round up bus loads of people willing to commit voter fraud, take them from polling place to place, then have them sign their names as some other voter on the rolls at that polling location and hope that the real voter hasn’t and won’t show up to vote. I lack the imagination to see how this could occur without detection. In any case, what everyone should actually be concerned with is that the voting system accurately captures the will of the people. In which case, voter fraud at the polls, in America, is the least of our problems. Our attention should be focused on things gerrymandering, first past the post, and for presidential elections, the electoral college, among other issues.

garrettgrimsley 8y ago
>To give one example, most states do not allow exconvicts to vote Almost all states do allow exconvicts to vote, but they may have to wait a certain period of time after release from custody/probation/parole. “In 13 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored” [0] Personally, I’ll be allowed to vote again in 2021. [0] http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-v...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

madengr 8y ago

It’s only disenfranchisement for those who desire votes from illegal aliens, and individuals who illegally vote more than once (alive or dead). The fact is anyone can vote on a provisional ballot, and if the verified ballots provided a close enough race, the provisional ballots are scrutinized and counted. This is presently happening in KS with 10k provisional ballots which could skew a 96 ballot spread amongst almost 300k. Those whining about disenfranchisement simply want fraudulent votes. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_ballot

rflrob 8y ago

So for one thing, which doesn't directly address the question, voter ID laws are being pushed for the most part from one side of the political spectrum, and some of those have acknowledged that they are doing it with a partisan goal [1]. So given that it's pushed by only one side, with no clear evidence that it's trying to solve a widespread problem, it smells to those on the other side that they are trying to win elections not by advancing the better argument, but by keeping their opponents away from the polls. As to why it's seen as disenfranchising, there are no general requirements in the United States to have a form of ID to exist in daily life. Poorer people who live in cities are less likely to have the resources or need to own a car, and if you don't own a car, why would you have a driver's license, which requires spending potentially hours at the local motor vehicle department, getting access to documents like birth certificates (which may well be in another state), and paying a fee [2]. Some states have free state photo IDs, but many do not, and even those IDs take some time and effort to get. Estimates of how many people are deterred from the polls because of lack of ID are tricky, and while the numbers are fairly low, America was founded on the idea of liberty and justice for all. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno... [2] http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/08/voter_id_laws_why_do_minorities_lack_id_to_show_at_the_polls_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...

ethbro 8y ago

Due to the necessity of personal automobile transportation in most US cities (poor public transit infrastructure), many Americans have state driver's licenses (~87%). We do not have a national ID card. Consequently, many voter ID laws presume that all voters will have a driver's license as a form of ID (or even less likely forms, such as a passport or birth certificate). While there are non-license forms of ID that can be obtained, all of these are bureaucratic processes. Driver's license IDs are problematic for two reasons: (1) poorer and/or minority Americans are less likely to have a driver's than wealthy and/or white Americans (by ~5%) & (2) poorer and/or minority Americans are far more likely to have their driver's licenses taken (due to policing and economic inabilities to pay court fines or other charges). Voter ID laws thus (1) create additional barriers for minority or poor Americans to vote, (2) are legal (in that aren't directly suppressing minority voting), (3) do not impact wealthy white voters.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> Can Americans explain why voter ID is seen to be disenfranchising or sometimes inarticulately simplified as "racist"? It adds a barrier to voting. We don’t like having to trust our government to be benevolent—the track record of such populations is poor. The risk of voter fraud (in the form of people who shouldn’t be voting, voting) is low. The ease of forging an ID is high. The risk of tyranny therefore dominates (I enter the massive corruption and security gaps in India’s Aadhar program as Exhibit A.)

sonnyblarney 8y ago

It's not objectively racist, but contextually, it kind of is, because a) some parties have definitely used these kinds of things for voter suppression and b) systematically, all of these hurdles tend to favour concientious folks, i.e. 'small c conservative', who have a tendency to be more right wing. So it does tilt things a little bit even if it's entirely objective. Having an ID is important for so many reasons, it'd be great if the US gov had a standard state/federal ID system that could facilitate so many things. Of course it would also be abused :)

ninkendo 8y ago

I don't really ever see anyone say it's racist, so even just bringing that up isn't likely to lead to a productive discussion. But what people do often say, rightly, is that of the population who would don't have ID's and thus wouldn't be able to vote if you enacted a voter ID law, they're disproportionally likely to vote democrat. You can take from that what you want, but it's almost entirely republicans who are for voter ID and almost entirely democrats who are against it. That's not a coincidence. Combine that with the fact that voter ID doesn't actually solve any current problems we have (in-person voter fraud is virtually nonexistent), it just seems like a distraction when what we should be having is a real conversation about the actual security of our election systems from hacking. (EDIT: s/democrats/likely to vote democrat/;)

fareesh 8y ago
What method is used to check to see if voter fraud exists? I am reading here that there are 61,000 homeless people in New York City. How do they vote currently? If it's possible to verify their citizenship after they have voted, can't the same verification process be used to give them an ID? I see this "voter fraud is virtually non existent" argument frequently but I cannot understand the logistics of it.
- ninkendo 8y ago
  Currently, in order to vote, you have to register to vote ahead of time. If I show up at the polls and successfully impersonate Person A, they cross Person A off the list of pre-registered voters, and I vote as them. But then, if Person A showed up, they would say "we already crossed you off the list", and it would trigger what we would call an "instance of in-person voter fraud." How they found out which person voted fraudulently doesn't really matter for my point, because: In a recent 14-year period, this has happened about thirty-one times across the whole US, according to wikipedia. (Source is here: [1]) Basically, it's easy to do, but also extremely easy to detect, so in practice nobody does it. It's not currently a significant factor in the security of our elections. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/the-disconnect-between-voter-id-laws-and-voter-fraud/?utm_term=.cc02227f9f8d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/th...

colemannugent 8y ago

Surprised nobody's mentioned this yet: The most common form of ID in the US is a driver's license. To get one you need to meet a bunch of requirements and then take a driving test at a local branch of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). If you are ever looking for a great example of government inefficiency it's the DMV offices [1]. All of them run horribly, most have massive wait times for simple procedures, and the employees have a reputation for not giving a shit. Not to say all of them run like this, but in California it's so bad that the government officials have their own secret DMV office to avoid waits [2]. If you were a poor person who really only has the value of their physical labor to feed your family you might not want to waste spend hours and hours of your incredibly (relatively) valuable time for something you can make do without. Since these poor people are often minorities voter ID laws disproportionately affect them. The question of racism being a factor for supporters of voter ID is kinda muddied. Voter ID laws seem to make a ton of sense on the surface, but a little bit of knowledge about the American election system makes it clear that voter fraud is really not a big problem. There's no doubt that racists would support voter ID laws as they do suppress the election turnout of the poor, but I haven't seen any evidence that racial factors contribute to the majority of people's support for voter ID laws. Like every topic in US politics, it has become hyper-polarized to the point where both sides talk past each other to try to demonize their opponents. [1]: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-DMV-so-slow https://www.quora.com/Why-is-DMV-so-slow [2]: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article216408570.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-aler...

Redoubts 8y ago
> The most common form of ID in the US is a driver's license. It's the most common, but not the only one. You can just show up and ask for a plain ID, and avoid all that. And I kinda have to wonder how people get their I-9 filled out without any form of ID. You generally need an ID just to work in this country.
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  There are states where you have to show a utility bill to get one of these.

dizzystar 8y ago

They can get an ID. You can't even get a legal job without a state-issued ID and federal social security number. If it's racist, well...

phil248 8y ago

Requiring an ID is a barrier to voting. Maybe not a particularly burdensome one, but it's still a burden that can prevent people from participating in elections. Better to err on the side of expanding access to the democratic process, instead of restricting it. Particularly since voter fraud is not a very enticing crime, or a very common one. The 'racist' angle comes from various court rulings that have stated that certain laws intended to restrict voting rights disproportionately impacted people of color. One particular ruling in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Texas state law which banned student IDs as acceptable voter ID was racially discriminating against people of color.

Covzire 8y ago
I don't buy this argument at all. Maybe 75 years ago, but today, without an ID your quality of life is going to be extremely low. Plus, the number of people who are might be affected is most likely dwarfed by the number of fraudulent votes that happen every single election, but that some people would rather not try to prevent.
- dan-robertson 8y ago
  Why should you not be able to vote just because your quality of life is low? Evidence suggests that the number of fraudulent votes is very low in the US (although the number of legitimate votes is also low)
  - Covzire 8y ago
    Some precincts will hand you a ballot by only providing a name of a registered voter, no proof required. How do you audit something like this to even know something went wrong?
    - mrsteveman1 8y ago
      If you're referring to provisional ballots, those precincts generally require the person to return to the board of elections within 10 days and provide some form of ID. If you're referring to a normal ballot, I've not seen anywhere that doesn't require some proof of residence and identity, like a very recent bank statement matching the registered address for that voter. For that to be an issue, someone would have to: 1) Obtain a recent bank statement for a registered voter 2) Show up, in person, at the correct polling location 3) Commit a felony by lying to the poll workers and voting illegally 4) Hope nobody who knows the real person hears them claim to be that person 5) Hope the person doesn't show up and try to vote

walshemj 8y ago

I assume you are asking in good faith but that is a big ask - yes it is "racist"

yardie 8y ago

It goes back to Civil Rights era activities and the Voters Rights Act. It's been slow ratchet effect of constantly changing requirements. First they require ID even if you are a registered voter. On the surface this isn't so bad. Then they only accept certain forms of ID. The accepted forms of ID are only available from certain departmental offices, like the DMV. Those offices have their own ID requirements to get their acceptable ID. They also are understaffed with limited office hours (10-4PM and 2 hours lunch). Due to budget cuts they also have fewer offices that can create your ID. So the simple act of voting becomes a catch-22 of needing ID but not being able to even get ID.

nkurz 8y ago

This is a good question, but you should realize that it's a very contentious issue in the US. Most people will assume that you are "trolling" even though you are likely asking genuinely. Explaining from scratch, the US has two approximately equally dominant political parties. It is presumed (by both sides, and probably correctly) that reducing the ID requirements will primarily benefit the more urban Democratic Party, and that making the requirements more stringent will benefit the more rural Republican party. Possibly motivated by self-interest, the result is that about half the population believes that requiring greater voter ID is "obviously" a good thing, and about half believes that it is equally "obviously" a bad thing. The side in favor ID expresses this with concerns about fraudulent voting, and the side against ID talks about disenfranchisement.

pas 8y ago
Any other form of ID? Is there some sort of proactive movement that tries to make this a non-issue by making people get usable IDs?
- nkurz 8y ago
  The problem is that anything that changes the number of voters is going to change election outcomes, and both sides think they know in advance the direction of the change. Thus rather than making it a "non-issue", any movement toward or away from universal ID is correctly perceived to have disparate partisan impact. This doesn't mean it's impossible, but makes it much more likely to be opposed by side who thinks it will hurt them politically. A change to the situation will likely involve either one side getting sufficiently far ahead to be able to change the rules further toward their advantage, or will involve a change in the perception such that both sides think that the same change will be to their side's benefit. But since these decisions are made on a state-by-state basis, any change will likely be incremental rather than all at once.
  - pas 8y ago
    I especially meant a movement within the Dem Party, to make them more resilient to potential upcoming voter ID laws?

MicroBerto 8y ago

Because you cannot commit voter fraud nearly as easily with Voter ID, and a disturbing portion of the nation and establishment media (and their purse holders) will tell you literally anything that can stick to the wall in an attempt to continue to hijack the nation. It is horrendously racist to claim that any race is "incapable" to be able to get an ID, and the math doesn't work out in its favor anyway. But it's the current argument du jour that allows the power to be removed from the people, so it continues to play. Anything else discussed in this thread with respect to the lack of American voter ID is just avoiding these facts. If the people want to take this nation back, they must pass voter ID and vote out (if they possibly can) those who oppose it.