5 ms·

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

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
      - nkurz 8y ago
        If you're referring to a normal ballot, I've not seen anywhere that doesn't require some proof of residence and identity Likely you are correct for the places where you have voted, but there is a lot of variation across the US. This page has a map of what states require (or do not require) ID: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-i.... As shown there, California, DC, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming do not require or request that the voter provide written proof of residence, identity, or eligibility to vote. The specific process for those states differs, but in general, it's all based on self-attestation. Some states require you to provide a signature that is compared against another source, but nothing like a bank statement is required.
    - dan-robertson 8y ago
      This is also how voting works in the U.K. without issue. I suppose your question is how you’d (a) know that fraud happened and (b) find who is responsible. For (a) I suppose someone would come to vote only to find their name crossed off. For (b) I don’t know. Perhaps there would be cameras. Note that to commit fraud like this you still need one appearance at a polling station per fraudulent vote so it’s hard to have much effect. A second issue to consider is that the list of those who are eligible is made by sending letters to houses asking who lives there and is eligible to vote. There isn’t really any checking of the eligibility.
- mrsteveman1 8y ago
  > 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. This is the exact opposite of reality, and the opposite of basically every attempt[1] to investigate the prevalence of voter fraud. The number of actual fraudulent votes is somewhere in the single to low double digits, it makes the news when it happens because it's extraordinarily rare. And it's a felony with virtually no real benefit for the person committing it. And even some of those few cases were people who simply weren't supposed to vote, like the woman in Texas that was just sent to prison for it, not people who didn't have identification. Texas has a voter ID law. The hyper-focus on one very specific kind of potential voter fraud, with virtually no evidence that it's even a problem, is suspicious on its face. That voter ID proponents keep ignoring simple facts about the actual incidence of voter ID fraud, while dismissing all other concerns, strongly suggests they're arguing in bad faith. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
- pseudalopex 8y ago
  Many activities require some form of identification. Very few require government-issued photo ID.
- phil248 8y ago
  "...without an ID your quality of life is going to be extremely low." Yes, some Americans have an extremely low quality of life. Some literally live on the streets. That doesn't mean they should be ineligible to vote.

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
    - nkurz 8y ago
      If you're referring to a normal ballot, I've not seen anywhere that doesn't require some proof of residence and identity Likely you are correct for the places where you have voted, but there is a lot of variation across the US. This page has a map of what states require (or do not require) ID: http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-i.... As shown there, California, DC, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Wyoming do not require or request that the voter provide written proof of residence, identity, or eligibility to vote. The specific process for those states differs, but in general, it's all based on self-attestation. Some states require you to provide a signature that is compared against another source, but nothing like a bank statement is required.
  - dan-robertson 8y ago
    This is also how voting works in the U.K. without issue. I suppose your question is how you’d (a) know that fraud happened and (b) find who is responsible. For (a) I suppose someone would come to vote only to find their name crossed off. For (b) I don’t know. Perhaps there would be cameras. Note that to commit fraud like this you still need one appearance at a polling station per fraudulent vote so it’s hard to have much effect. A second issue to consider is that the list of those who are eligible is made by sending letters to houses asking who lives there and is eligible to vote. There isn’t really any checking of the eligibility.
mrsteveman1 8y ago
> 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. This is the exact opposite of reality, and the opposite of basically every attempt[1] to investigate the prevalence of voter fraud. The number of actual fraudulent votes is somewhere in the single to low double digits, it makes the news when it happens because it's extraordinarily rare. And it's a felony with virtually no real benefit for the person committing it. And even some of those few cases were people who simply weren't supposed to vote, like the woman in Texas that was just sent to prison for it, not people who didn't have identification. Texas has a voter ID law. The hyper-focus on one very specific kind of potential voter fraud, with virtually no evidence that it's even a problem, is suspicious on its face. That voter ID proponents keep ignoring simple facts about the actual incidence of voter ID fraud, while dismissing all other concerns, strongly suggests they're arguing in bad faith. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-com...
pseudalopex 8y ago
Many activities require some form of identification. Very few require government-issued photo ID.
phil248 8y ago
"...without an ID your quality of life is going to be extremely low." Yes, some Americans have an extremely low quality of life. Some literally live on the streets. That doesn't mean they should be ineligible to vote.