The winner today is straight out of Texas, though the article can be found in the LA Times.
The question at hand is: should ID be required to vote.
My short answer, yes!
The article I reference is a fairly unbiased piece and I would like to take a moment to lay out both sides of the argument.
On the Pro (for ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID reduces voter fraud. The minor case includes the more specific point of reducing the ability of illegal aliens to vote, you have to be a US citizen to vote after all. The minor case is not specifically stated in the article, but it can be extrapolated from the circumstances.
On the Con (against ID) side, the major case is that requiring ID is discriminatory. The minor case includes clauses in the Voting Rights Act that has dictated that certain states must get permission from the Justice Department before changing any election procedures. There is obvious historical context here in the great lengths that some southern states went through in order to prevent African Americans from voting before the Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965.
The problem with the Con side is that these laws are not singling out any one group or individual. ALL people would be required to show a specific, approved form of ID in order to vote regardless of their race, religion, color, or creed. It's not like the 50s when African Americans were required to guess the number of beans in a jar while Caucasians could vote without this ridiculous hurdle. It is possible for any, and every, legal citizen of the United States to obtain a government issued ID. In fact, as the article points out, ID is already required to open a bank account, board a plane, and many other nearly essential activities. Why should voting be treated as anything less?
It is important to note that the "data" referenced by the assistant attorney general claims 800,000 people, not citizens, are without a government ID and 38% of these are Latino. Yes, 38% is a big percentage, but you must consider it in relation to the overall demographic of the area. The Latino population in Texas is approximately 6.7 million (32%) according to the 2010 census so if about 38% of the 800k figure are Latino, that is roughly representative of the state's demographic.
Data from the Department of Human Services indicates that there are approximately 700,000 illegal residents in the state of Texas, and 54% of those are Hispanic/Latino. This data suggests to me that we do have a problem with voter fraud requiring more stringent registration methods. If all of these numbers are correct (and I'm sure there is a liberal margin of error) there could be more than 75,000 illegal Hispanic/Latino immigrants who are currently exercising a voting privilege that is not theirs. The total number of illegal immigrants in Texas alone who are voting grows to well over 100,000 when all other races/nationalities are taken into account.
The bottom line, cases of voter discrimination should be dealt with harshly, but requiring ID to vote is not discriminatory. This is another case of politicians manipulating numbers they don't understand to make an argument appear valid when it's not.
*So I don't get in trouble with George Lucas, the title quote is from Star Wars Episode IV, A New Hope
I like the way Oregon does it, where there are multiple forms of acceptable identification.
ReplyDeleteI have issues with requiring one specific form of ID to vote.
Many people might have issues obtaining a photo ID (they're not cheap). I know I've had issues coming up with funds to secure mine in the past. While in some places there are organisation that will help with the cost, it's kind of a deterrent for some people.
You'll probably argue that if they really wanted to vote they'd go do it, but that's not really a good argument.
It seems to me that most of these voter ID deals are just a ploy by republicans to get less people to vote, specifically people who are enclined to vote republican, and who would vote democratic. These being NON illegal minortiy voters btw.
About the voter fraud thing, I suspect the amount of voter fraud is low if it really exists at all. I'm not even worried about voter fraud by some random guy. I worry about electronic voter machines.
I think if most states do things in terms of ID like we do in Oregon, things will be just fine.
There's no need to require a drivers licence, or a picture ID.
It should be noted that I'm not saying you need no form of ID to vote, but requiring one specific thing and that thing only seems far to extreme and just is a way to discourage people from voting.
-Ler
Where is this wave of voter fraud that people seem to think is going on?
DeleteIt seems to be that all these sort of hightend voter ID deals are just like I said earlier a way to get people to not vote.
"Under the Texas voter ID law, passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by Gov. Rick Perry, voters must present one of seven forms of state or federally issued photo ID at the polls, including handgun permits. Those without the required ID may receive a provisional ballot, but it will only be counted if they return and present an approved ID within six days of the election, according to the Texas secretary of state's website."
Because if they show up with a birth certificate and a social security card, they must be up to something. Those darn potential voters!
"But because of past voting rights violations in 16 states or portions of states, certain jurisdictions — including Texas — must first obtain "preclearance," or permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before changing election procedures."
I like it how the State of Texas expects people to follow the law/rules, but apparently does not need to follow it iself. Although I'm sure they knew well that this is what was going to happen and wanted a fight over the issue.
-Ler
PS. RABBLE RABBLE
You should realize that there are already 9 states that require a photo ID to vote (ID, SD, MI, LA, FL, KS, IN, TN, HI and GA) and 4 of those states are strict photo ID states with laws similar to the one Texas is attempting to enact. The remaining 6 require photo ID but will accept non photo documents meeting a certain criteria. To deny Texas this right but to allow it of other states is discriminatory against Texas. Either all states should be required to seek approval or none should.
DeleteAs for voter fraud, that is something that has been going on as far back as there has been voting. Whether it is using the names of people buried in the local cemetery to men like Edgar Allan Poe who would get paid to vote multiple times in elections. Build a better mouse trap...
I was not saying that there was not any voter fraud anywhere,ever, I'm just curious, is there like rampant voter fraud going on that requires new laws regarding it?
DeleteMaking it harder for people to vote just doesn't make sense to me. In Oregon (and I'm guessing many in the post 9/11 era), you have to present a number of forms of ID to get a picture ID. If you're low income and don't have the funds to get replacements if you no longer have like your birth certificate or whatever, that seems like an unreasonable cost. So if your in whatever other state that has a strict photo ID thing, and you need the a)photo ID, B) whatever things to get said photo ID, the cost could be very prohibitive.
Who does this affect? Clearly not rich republicans, it affects the poor. To me this smells like an attack on the poor.
As to the 9 states you mentioned, perhaps somebody there should file a law suite and get the photo ID overturned. Just because other states are doing something that could very well be wrong, doesn't mean you should let Texas do it.
-Ler
The very specific issue with discriminating against Texas is allowing some states privileges (changing their own voting laws without federal oversight) and not allowing Texas that same right. This goes beyond the particular topic of having photo ID to vote. The Constitution states that all powers not specifically set aside for the federal government go to the states, not that the federal government can pick and choose which states get which rights.
DeleteIt goes back to the fact that we are meant to be a republic of semi-autonomous states. Let Texas do what's right for Texans and Oregon do what's right for Oregonians. If the federal government decides that something like requiring photo ID to vote is discriminatory they shouldn't be saying "Texas, you can't do that" they should be saying "no state can do that" but that's not what they're doing here. They are singling out one state and turning a blind eye to others.