A good friend of mine asked me my opinion on whether or not a person should be required to show their ID in order to vote. I decided to answer her here.
When the discussion of this controversy first emerged, my initial impression was: So what? Everyone should have their ID in order to vote in any election. It keeps people from voting fraudulently doesn't it? But then I did some more checking into the matter and this is what I found...
First some background on why this has become such a controversy. Over the past several months there have been several states that have begun working to change their voting laws. Some of the ways they have gone about doing so is by creating laws that redistrict areas within their state.
When areas of a state are redistricted the boundaries are moved creatively that separate areas that would vote predominantly one party or another so that a district that typically votes Republican or is predominantly Democrat would have a deciding share of those votes moved into another district that votes in the opposite. The ending result is an area that would normally elect someone in one particular party ends up electing someone from the other party instead due to dilution of votes or it can help ensure that an incumbent will be reelected. This is called Gerrymandering.
In order to see how this redistricting effects the voting population of that area, one needs only look at a map of these new districts. In many cases you will see lines and boundaries that make no sense at all, curving through one section and then portioning off another. It is only one of many age-old ways to affect the outcome of an election.
Another move to change voting laws of late is to decrease the amount of time allowed for early voting. There are many people who lead busy lives between work, family life and other factors that get in their way. These folks prefer to vote when it's convenient for them since it will allow them to be able to accomplish everything on their list and not wait in line on election day to vote.
During the 2008 elections, students at Kenyon College in Ohio, stood in line for up to 10 hours, the final ballot being cast at 4a.m. But this wasn't the exception. There were complaints of long lines in Columbus, Ohio as well as in the states of Colorado, Michigan and Florida. There were reports of waits as long as 8 hours in Florida where even the elderly voters were required to stand in line outside in the suffocating heat. Also consider that most employees are given only 2 hours in order to vote on election day, so you don't need to wonder if diminishing early voting would have any effect on those people.
And all this election day waiting occurred with the average amount of early voting days still in place. In Wisconsin they made a "trial run" of how a typical election day would work with a decrease in early voting days and found that there was no possible way they could accommodate the increased number of voters the new law would create.
Lastly, there is a sudden increase in the number of states that are requiring IDs in order to vote. This is the one that has had people scratching their heads. It seems like the right thing on the surface. As I mentioned early in this post, I was definitely leaning toward agreeing with this law. What makes it a difficult one to decide which side to fall on is that the arguments on both sides are so convincing. So here are the arguments as I understand them.
On one side of the line is the group saying that the voter ID requirement protects our elections from allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots. It is their only true argument and it's a pretty strong one. In the state of Minnesota there were just over 100 people convicted of voter fraud for casting ballots in spite of their lack of eligibility during the 2008 elections. It was reportedly the most egregious case of voter fraud in the country since 1939 and the number of voters convicted of fraud in Minnesota was greater than the number of people who were caught in all other states put together, nationwide.
On the other side there is the idea that in most states an ID was never required in order to vote. In those states there are (and I was not aware of this anomaly until recently) literally thousands of elderly people who were born at home and therefore, do not have birth certificates. These people have been able to prove their existence through entries in family bibles as to the date and time of their birth but that is not enough for government-issued birth certificates or to acquire the state official ID in order to vote. And those elderly voters who have no such official identification and have voted regardless for as long as they have been allowed? No more. They will not be allowed to vote unless they clear up the matters that keep them from acquiring a state-issued ID. And in some cases it will cost hundreds of dollars in order to do so.
Other groups that would be disenfranchised would be the poor, minorities, new voters and students. Student IDs, under some of the new voter laws that require state or federal government issued IDs, are considered insufficient. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that approximately 5 million people would be affected by changing to an ID required voter law. That is an enormous number to just ignore. But that isn't even the most disturbing point about this whole issue.
What makes it more of a concern is that every one of these new voting laws are being considered in 'Red' states only. It is the Republican legislators and governors who are proposing these laws and it isn't hard to believe that such laws only effect a demographic of voters who would cast their ballot for Democratic candidates.
Even the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) in an attempt to discredit a NAACP report this week on the lack of voter fraud evidence, has bolstered the view that there is no need for voter ID laws, imposed by many states. And, according to George Washington University law professor, Spencer Overton, a former member of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, "the existing evidence suggests that the type of fraud addressed by photo ID requirements is extraordinarily small and that the number of eligible citizens who would be denied their right to vote as a result... is exceedingly large."
Now I'm not a Democrat, although I have been accused of being one, especially over the past couple of election cycles, but as a moderate who wants fairness in our elections process I have a difficult time supporting laws that disproportionately favors one party and disproportionately hurts another, while disenfranchising a tremendous number of people in this country.
Do our elected officials really want to hurt those who depend on them for the sole purpose of effecting an election? We have seen so much of this over the past year and it's disturbing to see one segment of our political system letting down numerous people in our society for political gain and the invention of another's political loss.
After weighing the evidence regarding required voter ID I have to say 'No'. In the current political climate I feel it is a bad idea. And, until they can ensure that EVERYONE who is eligible to vote will be provided a way to do so without cost then I fall on the side of no caution.
And if you think about it, with the low number of voter fraud cases in this country, is anyone really losing by allowing 5 million Americans to continue to exercise the rights they have always enjoyed at the expense of allowing a handful of ineligible voters to abuse it. In the grander scheme of things, doesn't it just make sense to not give up that right because of a small few who won't make a difference in this or any future election anyway? Give me YOUR opinion. Let me know what YOU think.
No comments:
Post a Comment