Merry Christmas! The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the “most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore” in 2000. The simple question is whether we, as voters, can be constitutionally compelled to presented government-issued ID in order to vote.
Merry Christmas! The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the “most politically divisive case since Bush v. Gore” in 2000.
The simple question is whether we, as voters, can be constitutionally compelled to presented government-issued ID in order to vote.
17 Comments
I hope they say yes. To say otherwise is to abet fraud, a true cancer in any democracy.
Why are not “registered voter ID cards” issued free of charge when voters register?
The genuine problem here is that of lower socio-economic groups having unequal access to photo ID.
The covert problem is the amount of voter fraud – “vote early, vote often” that happens, and which one or the other side believes favours them. We have no good grasp on the size of the problem, but I’ve seen official estimates here in Australia that show that it cannot be higher than 5% of the total vote – but not a lot lower, either.
Unless the ID (no matter what form it takes) is cross-checked with a central database, there’s always the problem of fake ID, as well as someone voting multiple times, once at each polling station for a district.
I see nothing in the US constitution anyway that would prevent photo ID being required, if and only if it can be shown that this would not have the effect of disadvantaging certain voter groups. Existing photo IDs may not be the way to go, I don’t know the facts in this case.
I was an election judge last election. We were carding ourselves and spouses (well not me, my fiancee can’t drive so she didn’t vote there).
I don’t know about elsewhere but in our lttle precincts (about 800 registered total–so yeah, carding’s not really even necessary) we take things damn seriously. Why can’t they act serious in the big town?
Or am I just a hick asking a stupid question? Dead people don’t carry ID here…
The arguments of the opposition to voter ID laws have a single agenda: opening the polls to voter fraud. ACORN operatives in Ohio and California have been caught red-handed in registering the likes of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. Without voter ID laws you can have the same faith in a fair election that the Cubans and Chinese have.
Up here in Canada we’ve always been able to show up on voting day, state our name, and vote. Yes, more and more election bodies require proper ID, but for the most part, we pretty much put the onus on the voter for being truthful (i.e. if you lie at the polls, you’ve committed a crime, and if you’re caught, you will pay). This also allows us to be added on-the-spot to the voting list, something that as far as I know is either impossible, or difficult to do, in the U.S.
Sure, it may seem naive (I don’t know how to put in umlauts on this comment form), but we’ve managed to elect OUR divisive, self-serving, tone-deaf governments without needing to involve the Supreme Court or Michael Moore.
The real baffler here is why this would be controversial or ‘divisive’ to begin with. Such a simple, low-friction and common-sense requirement, with such tremendous benefits in terms of stopping fraud! On what possible grounds could anyone object?
Oh, right. Race. The objection (distilled) is apparently that rabid southern whites are terrifying poor black folks out of voting by asking for a driver’s license. And now, this requirement will apparently interfere with the all-important goal of having illegal aliens vote. Oh, the racism.
Yet one more example of how diversity isn’t our ‘greatest strength.’ It’s a complete mess.
If voter fraud were not a problem, then why are politicians so ambivalent about about pissing off an alleged non-voting groups of illegals.
Unless the government is prepared to start giving out IDs for free, requiring one to vote would constitute a poll tax.
I doubt requiring ID would decrease fraud. Fake IDs are easily made and common, and busy volunteer poll workers don’t have the time or expertise to spot them.
Interestingly, the second page of the article says that no one has been turned away from the polls for not having ID.
Is there an issue of standing?
While I lean toward requiring some sort of proof, it is potentially outweighed by my distaste for a requirement of government-issued ID. Alas, not only does this layperson fail to find un-Constitutionality (given certain provisions – no more “poll tax” discrimination) but also knows that the ease of using new/future tech will make it all too easy.
I have been looking at the UK’s struggle with the idea of a National ID and hoping we could avoid it, but not believing we can. In the last 3 or 4 months, the UK government has “lost” duplicates of what should be (and in law is) confidential data of nearly one-half (some reports indicate more) the populace in some six or more incidents. It wasn’t even encrypted!
Says pilight: “Unless the government is prepared to start giving out IDs for free, requiring one to vote would constitute a poll tax.”
I think this stretches the idea of “poll tax” to absurd lengths. As in, “unless the government is prepared to provide provide free transportation, replacement wages and breakfast for polling day…”
But who are we kidding here? The REAL issue is the demand that “communities that skew Democratic,” as one judge put it, get the representatives considered appropriate for them, preferably a very liberal Democrat of color. Why not just cut to the chase and file a direct action against the Congress asking for just that? We could have a panel of federal judges in D.C. appoint these individuals to Congressional seats using a list prepared by the NAACP, ACLU, etc., thereby skipping the onerous costs of an election, post-electoral challenges, etc.
It’s no crazier than the claimed violation of equal protection the Supreme Court bought in Bush v. Gore.
I don’t think it stretches the definition of “poll tax” at all. The state is saying that you must pay them a fee or you’re not allowed to vote. I don’t see how that can be construed as anything but a poll tax.
You’re right that it’s a red herring. There’s never been any finding of fraud that could be prevented by IDing voters at the polling place. The whole measure is designed to scare lower income voters away from the polls.
Lets see, you need a gov’t issued ID to cash checks, get a driver’s license, board a plane, buy a firearm, buy alcohol, buy tobacco, open a checking account, rent a motor vehicle, etc. Why not to vote? Please find me one person in the US (who is a legal resident) who doesn’t have at least 1 gov’t issued ID? Considering its nearly impossible to exist in modern society without an ID, I can’t see how it would be discriminatory to anyone to require an ID for voting; especially if its required for all individuals.
How so? The costs (~$10) are so trivial that I have great difficulty believing anybody who says they can’t afford it, let alone that they in fact don’t have one. Consider what you can’t do without one:
1) open a bank account
2) cash a check. Banks and check cashing places require ID, so how do these people cash paychecks or welfare checks?
3) enter many government buildings
4) legally drive or insure a motor vehicle
5) apply for any government benefits
6) apply for a job. who hires without knowing who their employees are?
I can only conclude that the people whining about this get paid under the table in cash, take public transport or drive illegally and without insurance, and pay no taxes. Why we should cater to a population of tax cheats and (very likely) criminals is beyond me.
Vare are yur pay-pers??
No doubt, this outrage will be mis-applied to voter ID. Or the poooor will be adversely affected, like they can’t get anywhere else for stuff they need or want.
All this nonsense circumvents the obvious that voting is a privilege, not a right. Just ask any con. And no where does the federal constitution demand that presidential elections be held.
But, government issued voter ID can boil down very simply to those who pay federal, state or local taxes will be mailed an official voter ID, and those who do not pay, won’t.
Problem solved. Or not.
Technically speaking, in some jurisdictions, one must–MUST–present ID to an officer if such a demand is made.
Thusly, you need ID just to walk on a public street! Is it so ridiculous to demand ID to vote? In my State (Montana) my fiancee, who is ineligible for a driver’s license, gets a simple State-issued ID. Cost for 8 years: $8.
To call that a “poll tax” is stretching the definition. She uses it to get on a plane to visit her parents in Alaska; to buy alcohol; whatever one may need a picture ID for. That is WHAT one carries a picture ID for, and why one is issued in lieu of a driver’s license.
Hick or not, small precincts or not, I still damn well want to know that those who vote at MY station are who they claim to be. But I admit, I erred before: we accept power/phone bills or even vehicle registrations as proof of ID. Just need name and address to match.
Is that too much to ask?
Unless the government is prepared to start giving out IDs for free, requiring one to vote would constitute a poll tax.
Georgia’s Voter ID Law was originally struck down because there was a fee associated with the ID. The legislature went back and made the ID free, and the same judge that struck down the law originally, now has ruled it Constitutional.
Georgia Voter Identification Requirements
There has to be a balance struck between the right to vote, and making sure that elections are fair and the people’s choices are represented without fraud or other illegal actions.