Republican voter ID requirement is a bad idea

Republicans are always deeply concerned about electoral fraud, though it is Republicans who are responsible for virtually all of the dirty tricks used to prevent legitimate citizens from voting. In the recent past we have seen cases of Republicans removing voters from the rolls who happen to have the same name as convicted felons. Their new tactic is voter-caging, which most commonly consists of an extra (beyond the initial registration address confirmation) check on the validity of a registered voter's residence with a short period in which one must respond or be removed from the rolls. Most often this "catches" people on vacation or those who live in another state for part of the year. In other cases people simply ignore the "confirmation" because it's not sent by the government, but by "concerned citizens groups" who, it turns out, have sway with local voting officials. Oddly, the targets are mostly those registered as Democrats. Yes, they are concerned about fraud.

Now, however, Republicans are pushing for a voter ID requirement. In spite of voter impersonation being a non-existent problem, we are all supposed to be very scared that just anyone can claim to be anyone and actually vote. From NPR:

Royal Masset, a consultant who by his own estimate has been involved in some 5,000 Republican campaigns in Texas, agrees.
"My experience is that in-person voter fraud is nonexistent," he says. "It doesn't happen, and if you really analyze it, it makes no sense because who's going to take the risk of going to jail on something so blatant that maybe changes one vote?"

But, as Republicans in Indiana are arguing, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be terrified, because it could happen, and then people wouldn't trust the election process. Yes, the Party that brought you the hanging chad and got their man in the White House by a Supreme Court decision is worried that people might not trust the process due to a non-existent problem. So we need to make it harder to vote, but only on the poor and elderly; let's not go too far here.

The idea being put forward is that everyone has a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. We are told that people can't exist in today's society without one, so requiring one to vote is not a problem. Besides, this is a helpful incentive to get those tiny few without IDs to go out and get that essential item.

I drive, so I do have a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. But for decades I didn't drive and didn't need one. If I didn't drive now, I wouldn't need one. The last time I needed to show my ID was at the DMV to get a new one to replace the one that expired. I don't fly, I don't hang out in federal courthouses, my bank account was established more than ten years ago, and I haven't changed jobs in some time. People just simply aren't asking to see my ID, as much as that shocks Republicans. My two credit cards for several thousands were obtained by mail without anyone ever seeing an ID. Again, if I didn't drive, there would be no need whatsoever for me to travel (somehow) several miles to the County Office to keep my ID current, and I probably wouldn't. So this idea that a current, valid, state-issued photo ID is a neccessity is one spun from arrogance. It is the same kind of arrogance that propounds that "everyone" has a computer and online access, or that "everyone" has a phone. I have never needed to show an ID to vote, only to register to vote, and that was over ten years ago, so there would be no need for me to have a current ID now. Twenty years from now my registration will still be valid (under the current law, unless Republicans change it), as long as I don't move. I can comfortably conceive living the rest of my life without an ID, unless I change jobs, and even then I would see no need to keep it current. Apparently this isn't such a crazy concept. Again, from NPR:

But the Census Bureau and the Federal Highway Administration estimate that 11 percent of voting-age citizens, some 21 million Americans, lack any form of current government-issued photo ID. The ubiquitous driver's license doesn't exist for many city dwellers who use public transportation, or for those too poor to own a car, or for senior citizens who no longer drive.

So, and this is the important thing, under the Republican plan, the only time I would need an ID (this incredibly important document that apparently nobody can live without these days) is when I would turn up to vote every few years. This is important precisely because this is a condition that offers no other benefit to me other than being able to vote. Back in the days of the poll taxes, people paid a fee and got a worthless document that was good for nothing except proving their eligibility to vote. Sure an ID would let me enter federal courthouses, but I really don't need to do that. In fact, I served on jury duty this summer in the Hennepin County Government Center and nobody ever asked to see my ID, just the jury duty summons that was mailed to me. Oddly, nobody is concerned that I could have given that jury summons to anyone and they could have impersonated me at will. I'm sure that doesn't happen, but it could; shouldn't we be terrified? Sure, an ID would let me on to a plane, but I really don't do that, either. In commercial transactions, my bank card or credit card is all anyone ever asks to see. Other than driving, I don't need an ID at all to live my life.

We are already required to have a Social Security number and provided with a card. I had to get one when I was 16, but now you get one at birth. That proves citizenship (at least in theory, because they are widely forged), which is more than a current, valid, state-issued photo ID does. A state-issued photo ID also does not prove that you are a convicted felon, and thus ineligible to vote.

Aside from the fact that an state ID is not the absolute necessity the Republicans try to portray it as, there are high costs in getting one. In the case at hand in the Supreme Court, Indiana offers a free state ID for those willing to travel to a state office (which could be quite some distance away and difficult for someone who obviously doesn't drive to reach) and those with a certified birth certificate. Getting a birth certificate from another state can cost about $50, which is a lot of money for a lot of people, especially for something they really only need to show at election time. And it must be kept current, requiring more trips to the County Office. I guess nobody lives in rural areas where the County seat can be 20 or 30 miles away. Again, the only reason someone would have to go through this is to satisfy a poll judge every four years in order to address a problem that simply doesn't exist. But all of this can easily be dismissed by Republicans:

"There are burdens to register to vote; there are burdens in gas or shoe leather in going to the polls," Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita says. "That doesn't mean they were disenfranchised. They chose not to go through the parameters for voting in person on Election Day that are required in Indiana."

So why not require someone to dance the Tango before they can vote? Elections don't sneak up on people. They have plenty of time to learn the Tango, or Swahili, or master a Rubik's Cube. The answer is that these things would keep Republicans from voting, too. In my state, Minnesota, one can register at the polls, which are by nature close to people. It's a one-time thing, unless you move, in which case you can go to another neighbourhood polling place and register easily. You can use a utility bill in your name as ID; you don't need a current, valid, state-issued photo ID. Sure, anyone could have stolen that utility bill out your mailbox and tried to impersonate you, and then they could...vote? Oh, the horror!

Where does this stop? Couldn't someone who looks somewhat like you steal your ID and use it to vote? Heck, we can't let just anyone who looks like you vote; that's too scary. We need a DNA test or a retinal scan, comrade. Are we going to have people who grew a moustache or shaved off their beards since the ID photo was taken turned away because the picture doesn't match? Will people who wore contacts in their picture be refused the right to vote because they wore glasses that day? We can't be too careful, can we? Hmmm, this ID says you weigh 160 pounds, but I think you weigh 180. Sorry, buddy. Nice try, whoever you really are. You may think this is ridiculous and making a big deal out of nothing, but so is this false concern over people impersonating registered voters. Identity theft is a big problem. Getting a photo ID of someone else is not a big issue if you can obtain the proper documents and personal information, which apparently is easier than most of us would like. It could happen, and that is precisely the justification behind the Republican voter ID laws. Photo IDs prove nothing.

The sensible solution is to allow another registered voter to sign an affidavit that certifies you are who are say you are and live where you say you live. This requires no cost, which is why Republicans oppose it. The entire premise is to impose costs and travel on people who can't afford it and decide that voting isn't that important.

I had a poll observer certify me in one election. I had just moved into the neighbourhood a few weeks earlier and (gasp!) hadn't gone downtown to renew my ID. In fact, even if I had renewed my ID, it would not have arrived by election time and I would only have had the receipt for the ID without my photo. There was no way I could have predicted weeks before where I would have ended up living. I had no utility bill yet and my rent receipt didn't have an address on it. The poll observer walked the two blocks with me to my apartment and I opened the door and showed him my expired ID and Social Security card and he vouched for me at the polls. If I really was impersonating someone else, I sure would have been going to a lot of work just to cast a vote. Under the Republican voter rules, I would not have been allowed to vote that election. In fact, there was no way I could have voted at all other than voting falsely in my old precinct, since an ID would not have arrived in time for me to use it. Should we prohibit people from moving into a new place in November? No, let's just prohibit them from voting.

The affidavit option is reasonable. Political parties can easily provide someone to verify that you live at the address you claim, which is all that should be required. Again, a photo ID does not prove citizenship or lack of a felonious criminal record. Political parties cannot be expected, however, to come up with $50 for the documents for each person to get an ID or drive them long distances to obtain one. Who would turn down a neighbour's request to vouch for them at the polls? Sure, they could lie and put their name on record and risk going to jail, but is that really a credible risk?

Remember, voting is a right. Do we check someone's ID before we grant them the right of free speech? No, we don't. Do we let someone cross state lines without a photo ID? Yes, we do, and I've done it. Do we let someone serve on a jury without a photo ID? Yes, we do, and I've done it.

This voter ID requirement is nothing more than a barrier to keep people from voting who should be allowed to vote. I've shown an example where I would have been denied the right to vote through no fault of my own were these restrictions in place. This is not an merely an "inconvenience", it is placing an impossible and unreasonable barrier on citizens in certain circumstances. A photo ID does not prove that a person is eligible to vote, so these requirements do not restore faith in the voting process. Even if voter impersonation were prevalent, which it isn't, these new restrictions do nothing to solve the problem and may very well keep citizens from voting.