In my home state of Pennsylvania, voters will be treated at the polls as they have been for election after election, presenting an appropriate form of ID if they are voting for the first time ~or~ in a new polling place. That is NOT what our GOP-lead legislature, at the urging of our Republican governor, pushed for after the 2010 mid-terms, when they passed voter ID laws requiring every voter have specific PHOTO ID to present every time he or she votes. It was struck down as too adverse. The law was passed based on the premise the harsh measures - which especially effects, intentionally or not, the elderly, the poor, and students - would rein in in-person voter fraud. It should be noted that court records show that we've never had a case of in-person voter fraud. Counting, yes; in-person, no.
Since 2004, when Arizona's law requiring first-time voters present a state-issued photo ID, twelve states have passed voter id laws, with more in line.
Typically, acceptable photo id includes:
- a valid driver's license
- military ID
- a state identification card
- United States passport
- student identification
Not in Texas. Not in 2014. In Texas, voters must present a government-issued voter registration certificate, which they get after registering to vote. In addition, they must provide one of the following: a TEXAS driver's license (out of state is unacceptable), a TEXAS personal ID card, a TEXAS concealed handgun license, US military ID with the person's photo, a US citizenship certificate with photo, or a valid US passport. All other forms of identification are not acceptable.
It should be noted that since 2002, according to court records, 18 cases of voter fraud in Texas have resulted in convictions. That's no problem to folks arguing in favor of restrictive voting laws; to them, it only confirms the problem. They believe the LACK of examples proves there's no way to spot voter fraud other than with photo id. The fewer cases of voter fraud are documented, the more we know it exists. Hard to argue against that. And that particular argument fits well into the reasoning of people pushing for tougher in-person voter id laws - folks are easily riled & frightened by the great unknown, which is how in-person voter fraud is presented.
Is it just happenstance that voter id laws requiring state or government issued photo id virtually guts, intentionally or not, masses of the elderly, the poor, and students from voter logs? Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's blistering dissent speaks for many who find today's voter ID laws perilously close to limiting basic rights. The SCOTUS ruling declaring Texas did not limit reasonable access to the voting box. It makes sense to them that a state can accept only in-state driver's licenses & gun permits, but reject student ID. With that path cleared, look for other states to follow suit.
Am fascinated by what I've read over & over - that interest in more stringent voting laws resulted from the Presidential 2000 election, with the controversy over Florida's hanging chad ballots.
People nod & think - ah, yes, that makes sense. But makes absolutely NO sense when it comes to tougher in-person voting. In-person voting irregularities were never the problem - wasn't then, there's no evidence it is now.
The controversy in Florida was over how difficult ballots were to read, not that people had voted illegally. The controversy in Florida grew when the court-ordered recount was shut down by the Brooks Brothers Riot, which strangely prefigured what was to come - a bunch of what appears to be business people shutting down the recount, throwing the determination of the election to the Supreme Court, where the majority of justices were picked by Republican presidents.
What fascinates me is that the controversy in Florida 2000 was over the lack of clearly legible ballots, over the lack of a definitive recount. But ALL the current voter reform legislation focuses solely on in-person voting. None addresses any other form. They limit the least likely, let the rest go untouched.
In reseaching this post, came across an excellent article by the Washington Post - The Disconnect Between Voter ID Laws & Voting. Please note - I read this while writing this post, not before. It speaks directly to my points:
Almost no one shows up at the polls pretending to be someone else in an effort to throw an election. Almost no one acts as a poll worker on Election Day to try to cast illegal votes for a candidate. And almost no general election race in recent history has been close enough to have been thrown by the largest example of in-person voter fraud on record.
That said, there have been examples of fraud, including fraud perpetrated through the use of absentee ballots severe enough to force new elections at the state level. But the slew of new laws passed over the past few years meant to address voter fraud have overwhelmingly focused on the virtually non-existent/unproven type of voter fraud, and not the still-not-common-but-not-non-existent abuse of absentee voting.
At the end of the day - two days before the mid-terms - I find myself thinking about what Joseph Stalin is quoted as saying, "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." And NOTHING in any of the current voter ID "reform," intentionally or not, acknowledges, let alone addresses that reality.
On Tuesday, go to the polls & vote, a precious - and increasingly rare - right & opportunity.
No comments:
Post a Comment