(1) "Requiring an ID" - This was never about requiring an ID. This is about requiring a very narrow group of photographic IDs, only. Need a government issued photo ID? What if you don't have one, but have all the documentation needed to obtain one? Not good enough. So that's good enough to get the photo ID, but not to substitute as one.
- "Requiring an ID" - This was never about requiring an ID. This is about requiring a very narrow group of photographic IDs, only. Need a government issued photo ID? What if you don't have one, but have all the documentation needed to obtain one? Not good enough. So that's good enough to get the photo ID, but not to substitute as one.
(2) Which IDs are OK? Driver's licence is fine. Passport is fine. Not everyone can easily get these, or there is a cost associated with them.
- Which IDs are OK? Driver's licence is fine. Passport is fine. Not everyone can easily get these, or there is a cost associated with them.
(3) Everyone should have one, right? Claims that you have to have one to collect benefits or open a financial account are meaningless. I can open financial accounts online, without supplying a photo ID. Many of the elderly may have had some of the IDs at one time, but no longer do (no longer drive, for instance), and established their benefits and financial accounts decades ago, and have been voting non-stop ever since. Many of the elderly also no longer can get out and about like they used to be able to. Others, like members of religious orders, do not have those kinds of accounts, or drive, but, as citizens, should be able to vote.
(4) It's easy to get, right? There are many groups of people who can't easily get a government issued ID. Access to locations, especially in more rural areas, the need to have transportation to get to them, the ability of hourly minimum-wage workers to take time off when they don't have scheduling flexibility or paid time off, etc etc etc. It doesn't matter if you deem it a minor inconvenience, or if it's a brick wall. ANY requirement that creates a burden that falls specifically on a particular group or groups is going to have a skewed impact on elections.
Everyone should have one, right? Claims that you have to have one to collect benefits or open a financial account are meaningless. I can open financial accounts online, without supplying a photo ID. Many of the elderly may have had some of the IDs at one time, but no longer do (no longer drive, for instance), and established their benefits and financial accounts decades ago, and have been voting non-stop ever since. Many of the elderly also no longer can get out and about like they used to be able to. Others, like members of religious orders, do not have those kinds of accounts, or drive, but, as citizens, should be able to vote.
It's easy to get, right? There are many groups of people who can't easily get a government issued ID. Access to locations, especially in more rural areas, the need to have transportation to get to them, the ability of hourly minimum-wage workers to take time off when they don't have scheduling flexibility or paid time off, etc etc etc. It doesn't matter if you deem it a minor inconvenience, or if it's a brick wall. ANY requirement that creates a burden that falls specifically on a particular group or groups is going to have a skewed impact on elections.
(5) What's the history in the USA regarding obstacles to voting? In the days of institutionalized racism via Jim Crowe and other laws, there were "poll taxes" or fees to vote, which blocked the poorest from voting, and arbitrarily administered "literacy" or civics tests where a white voter might, say, get asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and a black voter might get asked to name the Massachusetts delegates who signed the US Constitution.
- What's the history in the USA regarding obstacles to voting? In the days of institutionalized racism via Jim Crow and other laws, there were poll taxes or fees to vote, which blocked the poorest from voting, and arbitrarily administered "literacy" or civics tests where a white voter might, say, get asked to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and a black voter might get asked to name the Massachusetts delegates who signed the US Constitution.
(6) It's needed to address voter fraud, right? - No, it's actually not. While there are various kinds of illegal voting, or voter fraud that happens, the kind that would be stopped by a photo ID - in-person voter impersonation of a legitimate voter by someone else happens almost never, at all. Voter fraud, because of it's one-by-one methodology, is almost impossible to tip any election unless there was a massive, coordinated effort of many, many, many people. That is not the case. Now, ELECTION fraud is a real threat, but that is not addressed by voter ID laws. In fact, voter suppression of legitimate voters would be considered election fraud, by most measures.
- It's needed to address voter fraud, right? - No, it's actually not. While there are various kinds of illegal voting, or voter fraud that happens, the kind that would be stopped by a photo ID - in-person voter impersonation of a legitimate voter by someone else happens almost never, at all. Voter fraud, because of it's one-by-one methodology, is almost impossible to tip any election unless there was a massive, coordinated effort of many, many, many people. That is not the case. Now, ELECTION fraud is a real threat, but that is not addressed by voter ID laws. In fact, voter suppression of legitimate voters would be considered election fraud, by most measures.
This is a solution in search of a problem. In lawsuits challenging voter ID laws in many states, and definitely in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, supporters of those laws admitted, in court, that they could not find even a single instance of this kind of fraud.
