Poll: Laws Requiring a Photo ID to Vote…
Midterm elections are Tuesday, which got me thinking about one of the most contentious topics of the last few years; efforts in many states to require voters to produce photo identification to receive a ballot. On one hand advocates say it cuts down on voter fraud, the other hand saying it disenfranchises voters, especially minorities. Neither Illinois or Missouri require a photo ID.
From Ballotpedia:
- Illinois: Two forms of identification are needed, with at least one showing the voter’s address. Valid identification includes photo and non-photo ID. Voters using Early Voting must provide a photo ID, such as an Illinois driver’s license, state ID card or a U.S. passport.
- Missouri: Voters must present a document to prove their identity. Valid documents include photo and non-photo identification.
The poll question this week asks your view on voter identification laws requiring voters to produce a photo ID.
— Steve Patterson
Extensive research shows voter fraud does not occur at anywhere near a statistically significant threshold and the theory was created and to encourage disenfranchisement through implementation such as voter id laws.
It’s not that voter ID laws disenfranchise minority voters—they disenfranchise poor and elderly voters, and this is their principal intent.
Good point, I’ve removed the word “minority” from the poll.
I’m torn on this one. On one hand I need government issued photo ID to purchase alcohol, drive a car, pick-up tickets from willcall, fly on a plane, etc…which makes it hard to understand how someone could exist in modern society without photo ID. On the other hand there is a small group of people that legitimately can’t (or won’t – crazy religious stuff) make this happen due to a number of reasons like cost, no fixed address, transportation issues, etc.
What is more important, the constitutional rights of these voters or the legitimacy of every vote?
Seeing as how the likelihood of voter fraud is practically nil, as has been shown in study after study after study, I would err on the side of Constitutional (read, h-u-m-a-n) rights.
If you’re really concerned about voter fraud, you need to purge voter rolls on a regular basis, removing people who no longer live in the ward, precinct or district, because they’ve moved or died. People who move are usually registered at their old address(es) for several election cycles before they can no longer vote “legally” with a passport.
A couple of elections ago I used my library card as I.D. The poll worker wasn’t sure if that was acceptable or not. I maintained that it was a St.Louis government issued I.D. card. The poll worker called over a supervisor. I refused to budge on my insistence that a St. Louis city department issued me the library card, therefore it is valid to vote. At one point the poll worker asked me if I had a drivers license. The supervisor slapped him on his chest and said, “You can’t ask that.” In the end they let me vote. I’m thinking about using my fishing license sometime. But that’s how silly our current laws are. I support photo I.D. to vote.
Many forms of ID can be used in Missouri, see them at http://www.stlelections.com/home/main/voter/voter-id/
The abiity to use an out-of-state driver’s license seems highly suspect to me – what’s to prevent you from voting in both Missouri and the other state?! If we really wanted to “prevent voter fraud”, we would only accept Missouri licenses!
This presents a problem to out-of-state students, who have a legitimate right to vote in the jurisdiction of the institution at which they are attending. I’m not certain of the laws concerning these students and MO licenses, but I find that a valid license from a different state should be accepted. None of this, of course, really gets us past the point that most of the so-called voter ID and voter legitimacy laws are sourced from right-wing extremists (that would be most Republican pols and punditry practicing today) bent on preventing entire classes and populations from voting. As noted, the instances of voter fraud and such chicanery are practically nil, and as such, the laws being set up to “combat” them are pure bullflop demagoguery.
While I fundamentally agree with you, I’m arguing the hypocrisy of being “concerned” about fraud, then undercutting those efforts in such a blatant / clumsy manner. If one truly wanted to reduce fraud, one would require any non-resident student to acquire an official I.D. in this state (i.e., make some effort to become a resident) prior to voting (just so they couldn’t vote in their home state). I have no idea how much cross-referencing of voter rolls is done between states (I doubt very much), so if the right-wing goal is “less fraud”, I’d focus more on creating a national voter database, and less on the type of I.D. any voter is expected to produce, but that gets into a whole ‘nuther realm of paranoia . . . .
The poll results so far show a shameful ignorance of the concerted and systematic efforts by right-wing extremists to eliminate entire populations and classes from the voter rolls.
As a Nation and society, we should be concentrating our efforts on making voting easier, more efficient, and fairer, not the polar opposite. This, however, would essentially doom the Republican Party–in spite of their massively corrupt gerrymandering in at least two dozen states over the last ten years–to the dustbin of history. And that, in a nutshell, is the basic reason behind the efforts to refuse so many of our fellow citizens the human right to vote. That, and a Republican Party voter can be counted upon to vote against their own best interests, and for the interests of corporate supranationals and the wealthy.
Note the Rude Pundit’s take on this, vis-a-vis his brother in LA*:
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2014/11/random-observations-on-reaming-thatll.html
WARNING!!!: His prose style is decidedly profane, and is laced with vulgarities and references not for those prone to wringing their hands in disgust and being scandalized by off-color words from the English language.
*I am not a fan of Mary Landrieu, as she’s just as much of a bribe-taking CongressWHORE as the rest of them, but as RP notes, she’s less corrupt where he counts it.