The legality of voter ID laws has never looked brighter.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in an Indiana voter ID case earlier this month, and all indications are that a majority of the justices have no intention of overturning the Hoosier State?s law requiring voters to present a state-issued photo identification card at polls before voting. We?ll find out for sure around midyear when the court hands down its decision.
Indiana?s law is said to be the most stringent in the nation, and so it would seem other voter ID laws around the country stand on firm legal ground if the Supreme Court rules not to overturn the law. Twenty-five states have voter ID requirements, with seven mandating photo identification.
Attempts to make Wisconsin join the ranks of these states have been frustrated by Gov. Jim Doyle, who on three separate occasions has vetoed voter ID legislation sent to his desk. Given that control of the Legislature is currently split between the parties, another bill is probably not in the offing anytime soon. But the issue isn?t going to die, so allow me to debunk three big myths surrounding the voter ID debate.
Myth One: Voter ID imposes an undue burden on those who don?t have a photo ID.
The argument that a photo ID requirement imposes a burden on certain voters conveniently ignores certain facts.
First, it must be noted that the vast majority of the population owns a photo ID. This makes sense, because not having one puts a pretty big hamper on a number of activities like driving, flying, making certain purchases and banking transactions, etc.
It is true, though, that not everyone has a government-issued photo ID.
The Census Bureau and Federal Highway Administration put the estimate
at 11 percent of the voting age population in the U.S. Other estimates,
like the state of Indiana’s (one percent, which only applies to their
state) put it lower, but in any case, it is not an insignificant number
of people.
Now if these people were simply out of luck and couldn?t vote, we would have a major problem on our hands. Yet this isn?t the case. Voter ID laws vary by state, but all accommodate those who do not currently possess a photo ID. In Indiana, such voters can obtain a photo ID free of charge from the state?s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Voters must present certain documentation to obtain the free ID, but even this will be paid for by the state in the case of indigent residents.
This imposes a burden on those lacking an ID, but it?s awfully slight. Dragging your body to the polls to vote presents a burden too, yet no one would argue that this disenfranchises anybody. The Indiana law is, in the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy, ?a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters.?
Myth Two: Republican legislators who support voter ID do so because they want to suppress the vote of segments of the population more likely to vote Democrat, namely blacks, Hispanics and the poor.
Let us look at the voter ID debate in a broader context: The issue is amazingly partisan at the legislative level. Almost to a person, it seems Republican lawmakers support the law while their Democratic counterparts don?t.
A look at the public reveals a far less polarizing picture. Poll after poll shows broad support for voter ID laws. A Rasmussen Reports poll released earlier this month found 80 percent of voters support a photo ID requirement, while only 13 percent oppose it. A 2006 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll also put nationwide support at 80 percent with only seven percent in opposition.
So, in essence, Republican lawmakers are advancing a piece of legislation that enjoys overwhelming support among the electorate. This is normally what good elected representatives do, yet to voter ID opponents, it is indicative of nefarious intentions.
I doubt 80 percent of the public supports photo ID laws because they want to keep poor people from voting. Similarly, I doubt that liquor store proprietors ask for IDs because they want to keep minorities sober. And I doubt airlines ask for IDs because they want to keep the elderly grounded.
In fact, a 2007 MIT survey showed only a negligible difference in support for a photo ID requirement among whites, blacks and Hispanics ? more than 70 percent of each of the groups supported the requirement.
It is perfectly fine to debate the merits of voter ID laws, but it is a wholly different matter to automatically assume anyone who supports such legislation is simply using a desire for clean elections as a pretext for underlying wicked intentions.
It cheapens the debate, pure and simple.
Myth Three: There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud at the polls.
OK, actually, this isn?t a myth. I can?t point to any study that shows voter fraud at the polls is a widespread problem. Indeed, voter ID opponents have seized upon this fact in arguing that such laws are frivolous.
However, who instituted the rule that a problem must be ?widespread? before steps should be taken to rectify it? Pancreatic cancer isn?t particularly prevalent ? should we suspend all efforts to find a cure or better treatment for it? Most people don?t cheat on their taxes ? should the IRS axe its auditing department?
It may not be anywhere near an epidemic, but voter fraud does occur. Look no further than Milwaukee in 2004, where a task force charged with investigating the election identified more than 100 people who voted twice, voted with a fake name or voted with a name other than their own. Milwaukee was unusual, in a sense ? it had a task force. Most municipalities enjoy no such luxury, and trying to determine any exact level of voter fraud is an exercise in futility.
Frankly, there are almost no safeguards to election integrity in Wisconsin. Voters register by presenting to election workers anything that looks remotely like a piece of mail with a name on it. Nothing more is required.
Requiring photo identification at the polls is nothing more and nothing less than a reasonable measure to help ensure the integrity of our elections.
Ryan Masse ([email protected]) is a first-year law student.
Two typographic errors were corrected in this article on Jan. 22, 2007.
