David,
For this reason (as well as for the sake of a plan that could gain the
support of both Democrats and Republicans), I've argued that voter i.d.
laws (with a biometric/fingerprint option---rather than actually
requiring voters to be in possession of the i.d. when they vote) should
be enacted only as part of a package where the government proactively
registers alls registered voters (except those voters who affirmatively
don't wish to register) and pays for all costs associated with
obtaining the i.d.s (including costs of obtaining birth certificates or
other proof of identity). So far as I know, none of the new voter i.d.
laws (all enacted (or proposed) by Republican-dominated legislatures
and opposed by Democrats) have included an element of full payment and
universal voter registration. [For more on my arguments, see here:
http://electionlawblog.org/archives/margin-final.pdf]
In addition to the fairness of coupling the two requirements, I think
it would cut down on the registration fraud that comes from the use of
bounty hunters to collect new registrations.
Rick
David Lublin wrote:
Many countries have voter ID laws.
As
one can imagine, this is not a terrible burden in European countries
where
everyone is required by law to have and to carry an ID and everyone is
registered with the local authority. It also isn't such a problem
in other countries where the government takes a highly active role in
getting
people on the registration rolls. The problem with ID laws in the
U.S. is that it is coupled with our traditional placing of the burden
to
register on the voter. It thus constitutes another set of bureaucratic
hoops and will inevitably reduce registration and voting to some
extent.
One imagines (though data could contradict this) that the burden
would fall most heavily on people who usually navigate bureaucracy
poorly
(the poor and the uneducated) as well as highly mobile people (who will
need to get new IDs and re-register). In short, voter ID is another
nice example of how the impact of one policy is heavily dependent on
the
institutional context in which it operates--it is not an inherently a
bad
or a good thing itself.
Incidentally, getting an ID like a
driver's
licence is not always so easy. When I moved back to Maryland eight
years ago, I had to bring several different pieces of evidence that I
now
really lived in the state. One was rejected because the zip code
and town name did not match (most of Montgomery County is
unincorporated
and thus the towns are postal addresses). Fortunately, I brought
extra ID and did not need to make it out to the DMV (not nearby) a
second
time. Of course, others might delay getting a driver's licence in
order to avoid the joy of paying the enormous tax that comes with
re-titling
your car in the State of Maryland. In order to avoid raising "taxes,"
the state is very big on "fees" as a means of revenue enhancement.
David Lublin
American University
I'm a bystander in this debate, but I think the
fair
interpretation of what the voter said was: "When will the Democratic
Party wake up? The only voters who would be 'disenfranchised' are ones
who are not eligible to vote in the first place." I think that
that sentiment is probably incorrect as an empirical matter. But
I don't think we need to play "gotcha!" games on this list.
Similarly, in the post that started this round, Joe Sandler seemed
to insinuate, when he suggested the Indiana GOP was "despicable"
rather than simply misguided, that Republicans' secret motive is to
deprive
veterans of the vote. I've seen much disagreement among both political
consultants and political scientists as to whether the veteran vote is
merely reflective of the general vote, or more GOP oriented. I've
seen no consultant or political scientist argue that the veteran vote
tilts
Democrat. Most everyday Republicans I know assume their party owns
the veterans vote. Thus I find it hard to believe that the GOP wants
to disenfranchise veterans, and I think a likely result of the
veteran's
issue will be a quick amendment to the Indiana law to allow VA IDs to
suffice.
That will not, I think, really satisfy those who oppose the
requirement
more broadly. Indeed, it will probably be cited as further evidence
of Republican perfidity.
The fact is, as Jason Torchinsky points out, most Americans
overwhelmingly
favor a voter ID requirement. If you just want to pump up hard core
Democrats, questioning the "real motive" of Republicans may work,
but probably this list is not the best forum. If you want to really
debate the merits or convince the undecided, I think you have to
address
the arguments as they are presented in favor of voter ID. It is true
that one problem with these laws, - as I have often suggested is true
with
campaign finance laws - is that they can be and sometimes are used for
political ends. But it strikes me that even that argument will be
more persuasive when put forth as an inevitable consequence of the laws
- not due to some uniquely evil characteristic of the partisan
opposition
(is it inconceivable that Democrats are also thinking about the
partisan
repercussions of these laws, and that that contributes to the vehemence
with which they argue for something that, once again, most Amer!
icans seem to view as no big deal?)
In other words, the immediate political problem for Democrats may be
that
they think these voter ID laws work to their disadvantage. But that
is not much of an argument for changing the law, unless the listener is
a partisan Democrat. The principled reasons for opposition have been
put forth by others, and ought to be debated on the merits: that these
laws are subject to political manipulation (including in their
administration)
and thus better not enacted at all, regardless of whom they may
immediately
seem to favor; that they burden voters more than their proponents
think,
thus substantially burdening a fundamental right; and that they do very
little to actually address vote fraud, thus failing to fulfill any
important,
neutral policy objective. I'm not sure that impugning the motives
of the overwhelming majority of Americans - not just Republicans - who
favor these laws advances the case much.
Bradley A. Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Columbus, OH
________________________________
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu on behalf of
wgroth@fdgtlaborlaw.com
Sent: Sun 5/7/2006 8:26 AM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law
A reader of The Indianapolis Star from Terre Haute may have unwittingly
revealed the Republican Party's true motives in enacting the Indiana
photo
ID law. Reacting to Howard Dean's visit this week to Indianapolis at
which
Dean announced the DNC's support for the Indiana Democratic Party's
appeal
to the 7th Circuit, the reader, as quoted in this morning's Star, said:
"When will the Democratic Party wake up? The only voters who
would be
disenfranchised [by the Indiana photo ID law] are ones who should not be
voting in the first place."
If only others who enacted or who continue to defend this dreadful law
were as candid as this plain-spoken Hoosier!
William R. Groth
Attorney for the Indiana Democratic Party
> Esperanto? We couldn't even count the votes in english.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Steven J. Reyes" <sreyes@kaufmandowning.com>
> Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:15:12
> To:<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
> Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id
law
>
> I haven't read the particulars of the IN law, but even provisions
> "allowing" provisional voters to return to the county registrar
with their
> ID (if they have one) are problematic. In AZ, for example
counties
seats
> are often 100+ miles from many points in the county thus entailing
a 4+
> hour round trip. Even if not as far in IN, this requirement
creates a
> practical barrier for those who didn't have a valid ID for
whatever
reason
> (forgetfulness/registrar error/poll worker error/just moved,
etc.).
For
> older folks and the poor, with less access to transportation, the
process
> becomes even more complicated. And don't forget all that time off
from
> work that people might have to take to do all this (if they can
afford
> to). The list goes on and on and on....(and for what? to "secure"
the
> ballot from the massive voter fraud that no one seems to be able
to
point
> to?) As you can tell I'm not a fan of these types of voter ID
laws. ---
> Original Message --- From: "DemEsqNYC@aol.com" !
> <DemEsqNYC@aol.com> Sent: Sat 5/6/06 8:41 am To:
> "JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net" <JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net>,
> "election-law@majordomo.lls.edu"
<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Cc:
> Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id
law
> Jason: With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the nature
of
> disenfranchisement. If I am allowed to vote by walking into
my living
> room any day I want and pushing a button, but you have to go
to Alaska
> and vote in a 20 minute window on one day of the year, in
esperanto
on
> by chiseling your vote into granite, have you been technically
> disenfranchised, perhaps not. Have you been practically
> disenfranchised, certainly. The extreme nature of the example
above not
> withstanding, everything else is a matter of degree, but the
principal
> is the same. Any obstacle thrown up in the path of an
otherwise
> qualified voter is a step towards disenfranchisement. The
fact that the
> vets chose not to jump through the hoops an!
> d over the obstacles put in their way does not change the fact!
> that th
> ey were disenfranchised. They showed up to vote, they
were not allowed
> to vote. The fact that these voters were veterans is significant
only in
> one aspect. They had a government issued photo ID, it
just wasn't the
> RIGHT government issued photo ID card. This goes to show
the absurdity
> of the entire voter ID system. It makes the right to vote
contingent on
> bureaucratic niceties rather than on whether there is any realistic
> question as to the voter's identity. Your references to
military votes
> in Florida are, of course, irrelevant to this debate. I
will note that
> the people who now do not see a problem with these vets being
excluded
> were on the other side of the issue then (and vis a versa).
What
> disturbs me the most is your reference to "at most, 170,000
people"
as if
> this was a negligible and unimportant number. By my fast and
dirty
> calculations, this is about 4% of the voting age population in
Missouri.
> Even if the number were considerably smaller, I !
> will remind you that the Voter ID movement was founded
on the mere rumor
> of a possibility that someone somewhere might be voting
fraudulently.
> There is virtually no proof of anyone, anywhere voting in person
under
> someone else's ID (absentee balloting is another story). If
potentially
> 170,000 people being disenfranchised in a single, not particularly
> populous state is not significant, then why are we at all
concerned
> about the voter fraud issue. It seems to me it always comes
back to
> whether you view voting as a right or a privilege. To
me that is easy,
> it is not only a right, it is a duty. It should not be
reserved to
> those rich enough, educated enough, or just aware enough to
possess (and
> carry) the right ID, it is for all of us, even those mere 170,000
> "undocumented voters" in Missouri. Howard Leib
>
>
--
Rick Hasen
William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law
Loyola Law School
919 Albany Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211
(213)736-1466
(213)380-3769 - fax
rick.hasen@lls.edu
http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html
http://electionlawblog.org