Home › Opinion › Opinion
Voter ID laws bring integrity to system
RELATED STORIES
STORY TOOLS
More from Opinion
Re: Frank Moraga's Jan. 11 essay, "Barrier at the ballot box":
In his argument against voter ID laws, Moraga, predictably, plays the race card by equating these laws to Jim Crow-era poll taxes and literacy tests. This is one of those tired old tactics of avoiding an honest, factual discussion of the issue by unjustifiably labeling those who have an opposing viewpoint as racists. As far as I'm concerned, that type of argument isn't worthy of a rebuttal.
Moraga then claims that obtaining a picture ID is an unfair burden to place on voters, and he gives us bizarre hypothetical examples, like "those whose religions forbid pictures." Let me say for the record that any person who refuses to pose for a photograph for religious reasons has issues that transcend the ability of any free society to accommodate their needs. I've never met such a person, but I have to wonder how they could possibly function in a modern society, as you already need a photo ID to do things like drive an automobile, board an airplane, enter a federal building, obtain a passport, write a check, use a credit card, open a bank account or buy alcohol.
There is also the claim that photo ID laws would disenfranchise poor and elderly voters, who Moraga states would be "hard-pressed to produce a photo ID." That argument is absurd on the face of it, given that a photo ID is already required to apply for most types of government benefits. If this line of reasoning were true, then vast numbers of senior citizens would be unable to cash their Social Security checks, and millions of low-income people would be unable to sign up for government assistance.
At the end of his essay, Moraga states that there are 21 million Americans who may have to scramble to get a photo ID in order to vote in the next presidential election. This is a false claim since it assumes that every American citizen without a driver's license has no other form of identification, is actually eligible to vote and lives in a state with a voter ID law.
I personally know several people who don't have a driver's license but instead have state-issued photo ID cards.
We have to ask ourselves, is it really such an unreasonable burden to require that voters present a photo ID to prove their identity before casting a ballot? It seems like such a small, common-sense effort to protect everyone's right to fair elections. The truth is that without voter ID laws, our system is open to cheats who could vote multiple times by using false names, convicted felons who have lost their right to vote, and people who aren't U.S. citizens.
In recent years, many states have gone to great expense to upgrade voting equipment to improve accessibility and accuracy. But if it is important to make sure that every single vote that is cast is accurately counted, then isn't it equally important to insure that every single vote that is cast is legitimate? All sides claim that they want integrity in the voting process, but making sure every ballot is counted without also ensuring that those who cast ballots have a legal right to do so is not an honest process.
Moraga dismisses the argument that election fraud is an issue by stating that there hasn't been a single confirmed incident of voter-impersonation fraud in the state of Indiana. While that may be true, the lack of confirmed incidents does not mean that some level of voter fraud does not exist in that state and elsewhere. It's like having an unpatrolled highway and claiming that the lack of citations proves that nobody is speeding.
A recent example of this problem can be found in the results of the Washington state 2004 gubernatorial election, where the final margin of victory was a mere 129 votes out of 2.8 million cast. Afterward, a legal challenge by one of the candidates led to a trial that reviewed the election results.
Chelan County Superior Court Judge John Bridges eventually ruled that 1,678 illegal votes were cast on Election Day, of which 1,401 were from felons who were ineligible to vote, 19 were from dead voters, six were from double voters and 252 provisional ballots were from nonregistered voters. In this instance, the number of illegal votes was 13 times the margin of victory.
Perhaps that is an extreme example, since the margin of victory in most elections is not usually so close as to be affected by a small percentage of illegal votes.
Then again, we shouldn't forget that the 2000 presidential election was decided in the state of Florida by just 537 votes out of 5.8 million cast. Think election fraud doesn't matter? Think again
— Tony Sereno lives in Simi Valley.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on January 16, 2008 at 5:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok...so maybe photo ID is not such a burden..cultural sensitivity aside, allowing a photograph to be taken of yourself should not be a problem.
Two points here.
Is there any requirement for photo proof of ID to register to vote? Honestly, having been registered for in excess of 10 years at my current address, I don't remember having to show that.
Second, if a photo ID is so important to assure that voter fraud does not occur...how should we deal with mail-in ballots? No photo ID required there. Should we then ban mail-in ballots?
This particular effort will likley do nothing to prevent voter fraud. I hardly doubt that your average poll worker will have the technology available to identify phony ID's. At a minimum these efforts are inconsistent, and illogical.
Maybe it really is true that requirements such as this really are an effort to limit access to the voting process.
Posted by cassandra on January 16, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Real vote integrity would involve each state handling its own voting apparatus instead of Diebold et. al. Once more scandal is pursuing this suspicious organization in New Hampshire. Pre-election polls and exit polls gave the victory to Obama, yet Hillary emerged the victor. Moreover, the precincts doing hand counting of the ballots went for Obama, those scanned by Diebolds went for Hillary. Diebolds are notoriously hackable and subject to virus.
Kucinich, who isn't even close and has no personal stake but wanting the system honest is pursuing a hand recount to settle the issue. He should be supported.
And of course the corporate media are silent about the matter.
Mr.Johnston's comments above are right on, BTW.
Posted by Nosmo_King on January 16, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nicely written Mr. Sereno.
Posted by Jacksprat on January 16, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
all state require some kind of document to register to vote. Those state, like Arizona that have had the voter ID law in place have found that it worked great. They had several other ways of proving who you were, however there was only a hand full of people who vote was not counted because they did not have the ID. Like aways when an good idea comes up there are those who can come up with all kinds of ideas where it will not work. Good thing they were not listen to or we would not be what we are to day, but just living in the jungle like Adam and Eve.
Posted by cslaurie on January 16, 2008 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think poll taxes are perfectly ok - only tax paying members of society should get to vote. Democracy is not free. Literacy tests should be required in English as well. That is partially why the President can not be foreign born.
Posted by shaver_one on January 16, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Only tax-paying members of society should be allowed to vote."
Hmmmmmm.
Let's go back to the beginning. Take the vote away from women. Re-enslave the blacks. Take away citizenship from the Indians. Put the mentally ill back in unsupervised asylums.
How about restricting the vote to only those who agree with the President?
Just kidding.
The point is that voting is a right of ALL citizens. I would add that it is a DUTY of all citizens.
VOTE! Vote for whoever you choose...but, VOTE.
The government we get is totally up to us.
Posted by cslaurie on January 16, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Shaver,
I forgot to mention that only citizens that have served in the military, paid their poll taxes and that can read and write English should be permitted to vote. Citizens that paid their poll taxes and were literate and served in the US military voted to do away if slavery if you may recall. The same basic electorate granted women suffrage. As to the mentally unbalanced and their vote - that speaks to itself. As for Indians, I suppose they would have been granted casino licenses as a consolation at some point in time.
Posted by Tom_Johnston on January 16, 2008 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Being opposed to a "photo ID" is not a "leftwing nutjob" position.
I don't really have a problem with actually, but if it is to be employed it should be consistent across the board. You should present "photo id" when you register or re-register, and since absentee ballots can't show a verfiable "photo ID", they should be banned from use. The Constitution is silent as to whether you could just "mail it in".
That is just being consistent with the intent that those who would propose such ID laws intend. People not qualified to vote by virtue of citizenship, AND residence in area a ballot is cast, should not vote. We won't even get into the notion that a voter should be "informed", as clearly far too many are not.
Furthermore anyone who thinks possession of a "photo ID" will prevent improper voting is really deluding themselves. Thumbprint or retinal scans might, but not a photo ID. Those are easily faked.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.