The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Voter-ID bills create new barrier

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Adam Lichtenheld:

American policy not very 'Christ-like' (November 26, 2007)
Media martyrdom plagues shootings (November 14, 2007)
Discussing Middle East? Go there first (October 31, 2007)
'Awareness' weak on Islamic reality (October 17, 2007)

by Adam Lichtenheld

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

State Republicans' desperate attempts to override a veto on the voter-identification bill failed for a third consecutive time last week. With irregularities plaguing the electoral system in recent local and national elections, bitterly contested proposals requiring voters to show photo ID at the ballot box have become a focal point in the election-reform debate. Nearly a dozen states are attempting to implement such laws, which have been met with the national skepticism warranted by such impetuous and ignorant policymaking.

Whether the push for voter identification laws represents a political ploy or blind hope for a panacea for the deficiencies of the electoral process, these proposals should be seen for what they are: a barrier, not a security blanket. The voting bill vetoed by Gov. Doyle is particularly restraining. The only state that has instituted similarly rigid regulations, South Carolina, responded with a lackluster 52 percent voter turnout in the 2004 election. Comparing that to Wisconsin's 74 percent, the impact of stringent identification laws on electoral participation is a cause for concern.

It's baffling that we would institute rigorous electoral restrictions at a time when we're frantically attempting to make voting more accessible. The very philosophy of requiring ID cards at the polls is inherently at odds with a nation that struggles to convince half of its citizenry to vote. With the costs of voting already discouraging involvement in the democratic process, why throw another deterrent into the system? If we thought long lines at the polls were unacceptable in the past, what will happen when everyone has to stand outside waiting to get their IDs checked like eager freshmen trying to get into a frat party? It will inevitably compel individuals to forfeit their vote on the basis of time and effort.

Perhaps legislators' insistence on voter identification epitomizes their disconnect from our nation's most vulnerable citizens. More than 10 percent of the 2004 electorate lacked photo ID of any kind; consequently, identification laws would burden up to 19 million eligible voters. Their empathy lacking, lawmakers overestimate the ease at which photo identification can be acquired — particularly when one does not have access to transportation, a nearby DMV, or information about the process. Obtaining proof of identity is not cheap — copies of birth certificates can cost as much as $45 — and I find it hard to believe that the homeless and the indigent will be able to acquire the resources necessary for getting identification cards. Proponents have flirted with the idea of providing free IDs to all eligible voters, but, considering the nation's current budget constraints, that doesn't appear to be a feasible option.

Regardless of the alleged ease at which someone can obtain identification, laws that disengage individuals from the American electorate are fundamentality unconstitutional. If voting procedure is modified to require photo identification and one — just one — citizen lacks or is not provided with such identification, then an undue burden is being imposed on that individual's voting rights. These implications have already manifested in the judiciary, where the U.S. District Court in Rome, Ga., awaits testimony in an NAACP-sponsored lawsuit against the state's photo-ID laws.

The constitutional and procedural aspects of ID requirements notwithstanding, it's important to note that such policies will do little to curtail the roots of voting indiscretions that have undermined recent elections. Many state and national electoral irregularities directly result from what goes on before the polls even open, not while individuals are casting their votes. According to a recent probe into statewide electoral glitches by the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, thousands of voter registration records from different municipalities contain multiply registered voters. Ineligible felons have been erroneously added to the rolls, allowing them to cast illegal votes. In Milwaukee, 1,305 same-day registration cards were never processed. In New Mexico in 2004, 5,000 dead people remained on the voter rolls in a state decided by 6,000 votes. Over 90,000 ballots in Ohio were discarded due to flaws in electronic counting machines. In Florida in 2000, countless eligible voters were prohibited from casting a ballot when their names were erroneously removed from registration lists. Showing multiple forms of photo identification didn't help them one bit.

These are disparities that will not be remedied by a voter-ID bill, but instead, by investing in keeping clerically accurate voter rolls and training poll workers, in addition to forbidding conflicts of interest for election officials (many serve as political-campaign chairs).

You don't fix the voting situation by plugging holes with impetuous policies in the name of electoral legitimacy, but by investing in the quality of the current system while ensuring that voting is accessible to everyone. There are many ways to preserve the integrity of the electoral process without risking the disenfranchisement of citizens. We need to convince people to vote, not give them reasons why they should not.

Adam Lichtenheld (lichtenheld@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (September 28, 2005 @ 1:12am):

Totally correct. College students of all political persuasions should be concerned about this illegitimate attempt to supress our votes in a fabricated war on fraud. It doesn't exist! It's all about clerical error.

Anonymous (September 28, 2005 @ 9:54am):

Limit voting to those who pay taxes.

NO REPRESENTATION WITHOUT TAXATION!

I'd bet that all taxpayers have a photo ID.

Anonymous (September 28, 2005 @ 1:58pm):

You mean limiting voting to those competent enough to get an ID? That seems terrible. Isn't the reason we have a voting age to make sure people can make decisions on their own? hmmmm. Maybe if the liberals didn't rely on shady techniques to get people to the polls we wouldn't have so many problems. Let's all go pass out some cigarettes.

Anonymous (September 28, 2005 @ 3:44pm):

Photo ID makes too much sense. I can think of no compelling reason why our voting system needs to be circa 1960. Cost can't really be a concern. Have you ever stopped to think of all the things people are "disenfranchised" from by not having a photo ID. It really is a cost of living in the modern age.

Anonymous (September 28, 2005 @ 4:56pm):

Ah yes, the "barrier" of legal residency.

Anonymous (September 28, 2005 @ 6:46pm):

This argument does not hold water; you can still very well convince people to vote even if id cards are mandatory.

Having identification at the polls is common sense. Statewide, polls are overwhelmingly in favor of the concept. Support crosses the political divide, and Doyle can only lose from his desperate attempt to throw the race card into a situation where it does not belong.

Anonymous (September 28, 2005 @ 8:21pm):

I move every single year, like most college students. How many of us get a new driver's license between August 15 and the first Tuesday in November (let alone the second Tuesday in September)? Not many, I would venture. In fact, my driver's license still has my parents' address on it. Under the proposal, I and everyone in similar situations would be deprived of a CONSTITUTIONAL right to the franchise. Get it?