I have been writing lately about voter identification laws because they are quickly becoming the sleeper issue of the 2012 election. A perfect storm of high stakes, old disagreements and deep distrust will likely see voter identification as the latest “us versus them” dichotomy in our bitterly divided country. Protecting the validity of the election process should be something which unites Americans to find balance and common ground. Unfortunately, deeper issues are infecting the discussion and by the time the 2012 election rolls around, the rancor and vitriol will only be magnified.
When Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that his office would be conducting reviews of voter identification laws in many states, the rhetoric from both sides got turned up a notch. Republicans think the laws are necessary to prevent fraud and Democrats think it is all a ploy to bring back the “Jim Crow” days when blacks were routinely preventing from voting using gimmicks and technicalities. That said, in 1995 a federal commission headed by former President Jimmy Carter, a liberal Democrat, recommended many of the same provisions Holder and most Democrats now oppose.
On the legal front it is worth pointing out that previous lawsuits against voter ID laws in Georgia and Indiana have been dismissed for lack of merit. Two cases were dismissed outright when plaintiffs could not produce even one person who had been unable to cast a ballot as a result of being asked to provide a picture ID. Rather than suppress voter turnout; in many cases turnout has improved after voter ID laws were passed. Perhaps being reasonably certain their vote will not be “cancelled out” by fraudulent practices makes showing up at the polls more worthwhile to some people.
This is the main argument of those who support voter identification requirements. Most citizens already have some type of state issued photo identification. For those who don’t and can demonstrate serious economic hardship, these new requirements often include provisions to supply one free of charge. This helps ensure that a citizen who wishes to vote cannot be turned away for lack of proper identification, so long as they take the time to actually get one ahead of time. I would also submit that someone who cannot be bothered to fill out a form a few days ahead of time is probably not that keen on voting to begin with. Is the left really suggesting that asking someone to do the same thing we ask them to do when they pick up movie tickets, board a plane or apply for government benefits; that is to verify their identity, is an undue burden and a assault on civil rights?
Why then would one be opposed to voter identification requirements? If I were a cynic I would wonder if the left is opposed to voter ID laws because they intend to facilitate voter fraud. Reasonable people should be able to look at the issue and find the balance that works in their state. I will offer this thought: Perhaps allowing people to show up at a polling station, say their name, vote, and then drive to the next polling station give a different name and vote again is not the best system for a modern republic. Perhaps requiring voters to exercise a tiny modicum of thought and personal responsibility is not acceptable but rather a good thing
Comments