> I have never heard a single sensible argument against ID checks at the polls.

It adds cost and there is no indication of an actual existing problem that it would solve that justifies the cost. Even if you ignore the fact that all actual voter ID proposals have been fairly overtly aimed at discouraging voting among selected groups of eligible voters that tend to vote in a way unfavorable to the preferences of those promoting voter ID, or that several times implementation of voter ID has been accompanied by targeted efforts to reduce access to new/replacement IDs in areas where, again, disfavored voters by the group advancing voter ID love, and even the more basic fact that it adds another point of potential failure due to human error even when pursued honestly, the fact that it to all indications provides nothing of value for the direct, immediate added cost is enough reason to oppose it.

> provides nothing of value for the direct, immediate added cost is enough reason to oppose it.

At a minimum it provides more confidence and faith in the voting system. That’s not a small benefit.

It also provides a safeguard against fraud in future elections.

It’s easily worth the small cost of requiring an ID.

The real reason the Democrats strongly oppose it is they currently have a lock on the “don’t care about or follow politics but can be dragged along by friends” votes.

Sure you should be required ID to vote but only if it is way, way easier to get ID.

I think you may underestimate just how hard it is to obtain ID in most of America. First, you have to locate the 5+ forms: birth certificate, multiple bills in your name at your address, previous id if any, etc. Many people (homeless people come to mind) would never be able to obtain all these records. Trying to obtain a drivers license at age 18 was a massive undertaking and myself and my family and had lived in the exact same house for my entire life!

Now imagine. You're poor. You're working multiple jobs, taking care of your children, etc. Even if you manage to come into the DMV on the first try with all the forms perfectly ready and in order - something the DMV makes nearly impossible - you will still probably going to wait 2+ hours to even get up to the window to start the process. When you add up traveling to the DMV, being there, and coming back, you could be missing the vast majority of a day of work, something that can get many minimum-wage workers fired.

In the abstract, requiring stringent ID to vote seems like something everyone should get behind. In practice in the United States, these laws are only enacted by Republicans that are threatened by shifting demographics. If all poor people in major population centers were voting, the Republican party would all but evaporate, or have to severely alter its message

>At a minimum it provides more confidence and faith in the voting system. That’s not a small benefit.

There's no evidence suggesting a meaningful amount of false votes are being cast by people without IDs. So if you don't think fraud is going on, you won't be more confident. If you do think fraud is happening without any substantial evidence, why would this change make you more confident?

Additionally, allowing voting without an ID also provides confidence and faith in the voting system. Why trust a voting system that rejects people for forgetting their wallet or for being a walking teetotaler?

There is no national identity card in the United States and there traditionally has been strong bipartisan resistance against this sort of an initiative in this country.

The defacto "photo ID" in the United States is a state issued driver's license. Yes, some places informally use this for age verification as a result. But not everyone has the ability to drive (whether by choice or by disability), so not everyone is going to have this document.

So identification for this purpose will have to rely on a patchwork of various documents in order for it to work. But even considering this, if photo ID were tailored in a bipartisan manner as such to ensure complete access is possible, there probably wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately this does not seem to be the case in some states.

The classic argument you hear, for instance, regarding Texas' often-struck-down-but-still-living-on voting ID requirements (https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/id/acceptable-fo...), is that a handgun license is considered a sufficient form of voting ID, but a college photo ID is not. I will add, reviewing the document, that from my perspective, it is logically puzzling to me why, for those aged 70 and older, it is okay to have an infinitely expired ID and still be allowed to vote given the typical "voter ID" arguments you hear in favor. Unless there is a "demographic advantage" here that the law is covertly aiming for, that is.

Or put another way: if voter ID were considered a serious issue, then the obvious first issue to solve would be establishing a new national ID system.

This would solve other problems - for example the use of insecure social security numbers as de facto national ID, and passwords, which you give to everybody yet can be used to steal your identity simply by knowing. Like, this is actually a big problem in the US that affects numerous people, and would save the economy million of dollars minimum, probably more, by solving in a secure way.

Then, with reasonable confidence that national ID had the uptake rate necessary to pull it's lack of below the level of impact which would effect elections, you could make voter ID mandatory.

Weirdly, no one ever seems to start with the - far more problematic - "hey national ID is kind of a big problem..." when they propose voter ID though. They also don't start with any data about in-person voter fraud (except if you count all the people who get caught trying to commit it to "prove" it's totally easy to do everytime this comes up).

Isn't this why states offer State IDs? I lack the ability to drive, but wanted a form of ID other than my passport, especially once I turned 18, which is why I got one.

It is and if voting id laws are shaped in a non discriminatory manner, this could be one of many alternative documents to the "standard" driving license.

But equal access is what matters here. If the ruleset is such where you make it a lot easier for certain groups to vote over other groups, chances are you will be found to be in violation of the 24th amendment or at least the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Texas voter IDs have been struck down more often than not so far so obviously a lot of judges have taken a dim view to Texas' intent.

>The classic argument you hear, for instance, regarding Texas' often-struck-down-but-still-living-on voting ID requirements, is that a handgun license is considered a sufficient form of voting ID, but a college photo ID is not.

It's a terrible argument to anyone who thinks for a moment: A handgun license is issued by a state government agency, often with antifraud features. A college photo id, not so much.

For that reason I actually think the allowance of identification that has long been expired, for those over 70, is the stronger sign of the direction. Why is old age a privilege in Texas voter ID law in that you no longer have to actively renew your identification documents like the rest of us? It kind of waters down any claim that "fraud" is the real motivation to me vs demographics.

The general media however has focused on the college ID vs handgun permit argument. So it has to be mentioned.

The argument against is simply to ask: what real problem is being solved?

And more: the argument consists of digging deeper and asking why, in the past decade, such a sudden, incredible, apocalyptically urgent need has arisen for in-person checks at polling places, with no equivalent need for ID checks with absentee/mail-in ballots.

Fraud with mail-in ballots would be orders of magnitude easier to pull off. Why don't states with draconian polling-place ID laws also have draconian ID laws for mailed-in ballots? Why, in those states, don't you need to bring multiple proofs of identity, residence and citizenship to a notary to stamp your ballot in triplicate before mailing it in? If fraud really was what they were worried about, they'd be consistent across these types of ballots. They aren't.

Also it's worth looking into the whole package of policies that usually comes with these rules. It's not just ID rules; it's a particular kind of ID, and a particular set of paperwork requirements, and closing down ID-issuance offices in certain locations, and closing down polling places in certain locations, and reducing hours for voting at the locations that remain open, and... well, let's just say meditate on that and you'll figure out what "problem" is being solved. If you're still not convinced, just go read the defenders of these policies, in their own words, in court filings, explaining why they're doing this.

Voting is fundamental enough that it should only be restricted in the event of pressing, urgent, demonstrated, proven issues, and only the absolute minimum restrictions should be put in place. Voter ID doesn't "solve" any such issue, and is not the minimum necessary restriction in any event (there are already mechanisms for challenging suspected fraudulent voting, if you're truly worried about that).

"Fraud with mail-in ballots would be orders of magnitude easier to pull off."

As recent bombers have discovered, this isn't the 70s Unibomber era anymore, and every piece of mail is individually bar code tracked and enormous computerized fingerprint databases exist along with CCTV footage and cell phone monitoring databases. Using the US mail to commit a crime in a general sense (not strictly election fraud) would have been fairly untraceable in 1970 but half a century later it would be an extremely foolish strategy. The USPS is slightly less locked down than my bank, but much more locked down than my local food store, for example.

How does any of that prevent someone from looking at the voting records, seeing that Bob never votes, filling out an absentee ballot in Bob's name, and dropping it in the nearest mail pickup box?

So, I lived for almost a decade in Kansas, home of Kris Kobach and his never-ending quest to restrict voting and prevent "fraud".

At one point his office was forced to actually investigate and look for fraud, and what they found... were wealthy people -- typically Republican voters -- who owned properties in multiple locations and were voting at each of those locations.

Absentee/mail-in ballots make that kind of fraud much easier, but despite it being the only fraud he ever found, Kobach never pushed for any kind of purge of multiple-property-owning voters from the rolls, or ID checks for mailed-in ballots. Wonder why...

Probably because you've never heard any one suggest that we not require IDs to vote.

Identity is determined, confirmed during the registration step.

Identity is reaffirmed at the poll site, with both ID and signature verification. (Address and signature for postal ballots.)

The manufactured outrage about "voter fraud" is used to justify ratcheting up the voter id requirements. Specifically, requiring voters have government issued photo id. Which costs money. Which makes it a poll tax. Which is unconstitutional.

Provide government id for free and everyone who supports democracy and enfranchisement is totally on board.

--

Those of us who understand election administration also oppose the unnecessary bureaucratic gatekeeping imposed in places like Georgia. For example, if your drivers license says "chris co255" and your voter id says "chris-co255", even though everything else matches, your registration will be purged.

Cast opposing such kafkaesque draconian measures as partisan if you wish.

1) There's essentially no in person voter fraud in america, so asking for id doesn't help anything.

2) Only 91% of whites, 73% of blacks and 81% of hispanic citizens have a government issued ID, so you're disenfranchising a lot of people by requiring it.

Which mean that 9% of whites, 27% of blacks and 19% of hispanics are barred from air travel, being a driver, buy beer, going to bars, participating in lottos or buying cigarettes. I would also guess it also mean barred from trains, sport and concerts (since now days those tend to use personalized tickets to avoid scalping), and visiting a political representative as those places tend to have heightened security.

That is a lot of barred experience. Sounds a bit like second-class citizenship.

Comment, based on the down votes, Is this wrong? Can you buy a air ticket in the US and travel by plane without an ID?

Yes, you can fly without ID. The TSA’s website says as much: https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/identification

At least in my state, you can also travel on a train, go to a baseball game, attend a concert, and buy lottery tickets and cigarettes and beer (provided you look old enough) without ID.

If you want to make a voter ID compulsory, let’s have that discussion but included within it must be that the card is free, available the same day, easy to get on a weekend, accepted by every state and territory and voting location, and has minimal paperwork requirements for all circumstances of birth including home, midwife, unknown parent or parents, overseas, and domestic to two non-citizen parents.

Until you do that, the ID requirement is effectively disenfranchisement and that cannot stand for voting.

If ID is only used for voting then that seems like a huge waste for everyone involved.

I wonder how common ID usage is per state. Would be interesting to see how that correlate to state that currently require ID for voting.

From your link:

Forgot Your ID?

In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.

You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if your identity cannot be confirmed, you chose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process.

Yes you can fly within the US without an ID. It requires additional security inspection.

Your argument falls apart anyway. None of the things you listed are rights, they are privileges. Voting is a right.

Bearing arms is also a right. Walk into a gun store in any state and try to buy anything without an ID and see how that works out.

I'm personally not in favor of voter ID laws but (unfortunately) there is plenty of precedent for restriction of fundamental rights.

I don't understand how are other limitations that goes with not having id an argument? Apparently those people exists and either don't do all those things or id needed for alcohol buy is different then one for voting.

Which based on what I read about issue is often the case. You can buy alcohol on pretty much any piece of paper (student id) while the one for voting has more requirements. You can loose driving license for variety of things, including health, not paying court fees, etc.

Its a motivation argument.

If you can't be motivated to drive a car, open a bank account (under KYC laws), buy a handgun, fly on an airplane, hold a legit tax paying job (under form I-9), enter federal controller property such as an office building, buy and drink alcohol, go to a concert, any number of zillions of things, why permit someone that disconnected from society to vote? They have no skin in the game and they clearly do not care enough to put forth the most minimal effort to fix their problem, yet they want to impose their active dis-motivation upon us all by voting and thats somehow good.

If someone is allowed to be completely disconnected from reality but should still be able to vote, should someone completely disconnected from reality be allowed to buy a handgun under an identical argument that anyone should be allowed to do anything they feel like?

Should it be easier for someone to vote for "literally Hitler" without an ID than it is to buy a harmless handgun or hunting rifle? Surely, voting is more important.

(My uncle is a shut-in with no ID, and a friend of mine didn't have ID for over a decade but otherwise lived a normal life, her husband had ID/driver's license, she took the bus everywhere, and was self employed, so she never felt a reason to get one until she got divorced)

Because there's nothing in the Constitution that requires you to be "connected to society" to vote. Nor is there any provision that says you must be "motivated" (motivated for what exactly??? The things that motivate me are different from the things that motivate you). The Constitution doesn't require you to be employed or even have shelter. The Constitution purposely doesn't say "only people who have HN commenter VLM approved lifestyles are allowed to vote" because the whole idea of "freedom" is allowing someone to choose to live as weirdly as they want to.

>yet they want to impose their active dis-motivation upon us all by voting

No they don't want to "impose dis-motivation" on anyone. Even if they did, that's their right to do so. I don't appreciate a Christian "imposing Christ" on me, and some may vote candidates that want to turn America into a theocracy, yet I don't arbitrarily decide Christians don't get to vote. I also don't want white supremacists candidates to get elected, but I don't arbitrarily decide that white supremacists don't get a right to vote.

Most people who live as shut-ins don't see it as a problem, not my choice to live like that, personally, but I don't tell other people how to live their lives.

Probably. But does that justify making it more difficult for them to vote?

Depending if those problem are true or not for any given state, but if they are then those issue represent a major problem beyond that of voting.

To take a example from Europe, membership cards from schools/universities, banks, and driving license work as automatic identity cards. For those who neither study, have a bank account or drive then the police should provide one. For the wast majority this mean that ID cards are automatic process of normal life, and for the rest it is a simple matter of requesting one at the nearest police station. As a result almost everyone has some form of identification card or an other.

It can definitely indicate a major problem beyond that of voting.

But what does that have to do with voting? Should they have a harder time voting because they already have other major problems anyway?

Had to think about it for a while, but I think you answered the question accidentally. It does not have anything to do with voting.

Lets imagine we had a state which got tired of vulnerable and weak social security number. In every place where it is used we replace it a two factor hardware token that include bio-metric data (a photo), issued by the government or institutions like banks that by law are required to follow strict requirement of identification. I think we can both agree that this initiative would not have the goal to make voting harder, nor prevent voting fraud, but rather fix identity theft caused by the weak password-like system of social security numbers.

Are you a teenager? I haven't been carded for alcohol purchases in years. I take a bus to work, so I don't need a driver's license. I live every day just fine without ID.

No, I'm in my 30s but I have a young face. By the way, I can't rent a hotel room without ID. Can't rent an apartment without ID...can't take out a loan without ID. I think ID is required even to open a bank account these days. Are you telling me you don't have an ID? Or if you didn't have one, that it would be difficult to get one? It's probably more work to register to vote than to get an actual ID and the latter will probably statistically have a bigger impact on your life.

Can't you travel by plane without an ID domestically where you live?

How can people be so sure there is no fraud when they are not asking for an ID?

Wouldn't it be better to work to fix the problem of a lack of ID than to just throw up our hands and claim we don't need it?

Fix the problem of lack of ID first, then we can require ID to vote. Doing it in the other order is an unacceptable infringement on the right to vote.

The noise machine also conflates voter registration errors with election fraud.

For example, radical right wing pundit Ann Coulter was registered to vote in two places at the same time. (I don't recall if she also cast both ballots. Unlikely.) That is an error, not a fraud.

Such errors are inevitable in our state-based voter registration database administration. Worsened because only registered people are tracked. Versus listing all people and having flags for their eligibility.

The fix is nation wide universal automatic voter registration. Just like every other mature democracy.

I disagree on the nation-wide voter registration. Besides being probably unconstitutional, it has an effect of centralizing the power of the vote into the Federal government. It would be very difficult to pull off fraud in all 50 states, but it would be at least 50 times less difficult to do it in one centralized bureaucracy.

The simple argument is that it can be considered a poll tax, and those are unconstitutional.

I've always wondered about this, but haven't dug into it - why is a poll tax unconstitutional, but the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition not?

The 24th amendment.

>The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Well, there you go :)

Thank you. I'm surprised and a bit embarrassed to admit I was ignorant of the fact that it was clearly spelled out in an Amendment, but am happy to have rectified that ignorance.

Finally, a sensible argument.

I do think an ID that you need to have and is gvt issued should be baid by taxes. But noone likes those.

^ said in answer to a sensible argument against ID checks at the polls, you can't please some people.