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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and African studies.
