The context is that certain populations in the US are known to be disenfranchised from getting ID. Here's an example from the Washington Post in 2016: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/getting-a...
I actually really like the process that Elections Canada uses. They verified that most Canadians have ID (86% have Driver's Licenses). They identified the most common issue (proof of address) and added a mitigating process (mailing Voter Information Cards). And finally, they have a fallback: as a third option, a person's identity can be vouched for by a person who does have ID. https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=med&dir=c76/id... https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=poli/r...
I'd suggest reading through the ACLU's article on voter ID laws to learn how the disenfranchisement is targeted in practice.
https://www.aclu.org/other/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-...
Edit: I'll put two of them into Swedish context.
First, some rural areas in Texas are 170 miles from the nearest location they could apply for an ID. That's about the distance from Stockholm to Karlstad, which is much more difficult to travel without a train infrastructure like Sweden's.
Secondly, the cost of applying for an ID can range from $75-$175, or ~650-1500 krona. I noticed in another thread you mentioned Swedish voter IDs cost 350 crowns. Our voter IDs cost 2-4x as much in absolute terms. Sweden doesn't have a minimum wage, but for reference ours is $7.25/hr ($14,500 pre-tax annually, assuming a full-time 40hr/week job) and our 10th percentile household income is about $14,000 annually (~$122k SEK). So a voter ID can cost a low-income worker about 3 days of pre-tax income, likely 3.5 or 4 post-tax.
So on the one hand we have a solution to fraud that doesn't happen vs explicit and intentional voter disenfranchisement.
[0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/
Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm
There are free options that are easy to aquire. Not sure why there are so many myths about this.
The WaPo article has some glaring falsehoods. Of course in Texas you can vote with your concealed handgun license, it's the hardest one to get.
Politics. And not every place is Texas. Also, because there are precious few examples of voter fraud while there is ample evidence of voter suppression.
India with a 900 million eligible voters in 2019 elections had the biggest turnout - 67%. Aka over 600 million votes were cast and counted. They have strict voter ID laws. Despite having a large disenfranchised population.
This is just a talking point without any basis in facts.
[0] As in we have emails where they talk about specifically eliminating Sunday as an early voting day because it's heavily black and disproportionately Democratic.
[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/
In Sweden, are there limited protections for worked so that many poor workers won't have any paid days off they can use for such a trip, so it will cost them a day or two of pay to get their ID, and perhaps their job if their boss doesn't approve of them taking time off from work?
In Sweden, are the politicians who instituted the voter ID policies the same politicians that have drastically reduced the number of polling places per capita in minority neighborhoods so that actually voting there can require hours of standing in line (and missing work if your employer doesn't give you a paid day off to vote), while not cutting or even increasing polling places per capita in white neighborhoods so that it is a breeze for whites to quickly and easily vote?
Have they cut back early voting programs that opened the polling places during the weekend before election day, so people could vote on their days off?
If the answer to all of the above is "no", then what you see in Sweden is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to understanding voting in the US.
The fact is that the people enacting voter ID laws in the United States (1) are generally the same people who have been working hard to limit minority voting, (2) cannot demonstrate that it solves any actual problem, (3) try to make it hard for poor and minorities to get the ID that they pick for their system while making it easy for white people.
That's why there is plenty of opposition to voter ID--the politicians pushing for it are not acting in good faith. If someone proposed a voter ID system in good faith--one in which it was free to get ID, could be obtained quickly and without the need for a lot of travel, and was easy for minorities to get as for white people, there would mostly only be objections from those who oppose national ID system in general.
Even you can get a new passport or ID at Amsterdam airport and some municipalities while living abroad. Even here in the UK there is an evening opening hours to get your ID (5-7 pm) or open on Saturday morning.
Personally, this sounds the US government is trying to make it unreasonable hard to vote.
I've never really come across this phrase in UK politics. If it was to come up, I'm certain it would be met with extreme outrage. Why is it just accepted in the US?!
I've not seen "extreme outrage" to any of these examples:
"It could lead to a repeat on the mainland of the Northern Ireland experience where the introduction of individual registration led to a 10% drop in registrations and many eligible voters effectively being disenfranchised."[0]
"The government trialled voter ID in some local authorities during the 2018 and 2019 local elections. It was disturbing to see ministers describe it as a “success”: we know that hundreds of people were denied a vote for not having ID. In 2019, according to official figures, more than 700 people were turned away from polling stations across just 10 council areas."[1]
"A large software company whose shareholders include Brexiter and former Conservative Cabinet minister Peter Lilley has been given a lucrative contract by the Cabinet Office without competitive tendering to revamp the management of the electoral register in extraordinary circumstances."[2]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/sep/15/new-voter-r...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/queens-speech-voter-id-...
[2] https://bylinetimes.com/2020/01/07/why-did-cabinet-office-ru...
https://www.nps.gov/articles/anti-suffragism-in-the-united-s...
It's been a continuous process since the country's founding to enfranchise all citizens with the right to vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_St...
It sure did back in Alabama in 2015: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/12/16767426/... (ctrl-f for "But the stories getting attention were almost all from 2015".)
> Even the poorest in my country are able to vote despite having these voter ID restrictions.
Good for them, but I'm not sure what bearing that has on the poorest in an entirely different country.
It is not malicious inasmuch they are pushing for it solely because they think they will benefit from this process. If it were the other way around they would oppose it.
If it costs $15 to get an ID and you need an ID to vote, then it costs $15 to vote. Poll taxes are illegal.
Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm
The Social Security Card is a free document. They mail it to you without you having to present yourself anywhere. There would be far less objection to voter ID if this type of system was being proposed by proponents of voter ID.
I'd say it's the opposite. Employed middle class working 9-to-5 with 2 kids have less time and means. There's a Hitchen's quote somewhere here...
Voter ID laws have not been show to reduce turn out.
>To add to that, states like Alabama strategically place offices to make it even more difficult for e.g. people who do not have access to a car to get said ID.
That's not a problem with voter ID laws though. This is a red herring.
>The Social Security Card is a free document. They mail it to you without you having to present yourself anywhere.
This is patently false. I just personally went through this. You absolutely have to show up to a SSA office and bring documentation.
"Employed middle class" typically reads as "mobile" and "9-5" frequently reads as "white-collar". Those folks feel time constrained, but they are also very likely to have e.g. PTO/flexible work schedules and access to transportation.
It's worse for (say) unemployed people with no transportation. This is to say nothing of the disabled, bedridden, etc. There are significant numbers of people for whom this is an unnecessary burden.
And again -- this burden is significantly higher than the requirement placed on residents who wish to carry shotguns into restaurants.
> Voter ID laws have not been show to reduce turn out.
Voter ID laws have not been shown to reduce voter fraud. At best, they add cost and bureaucracy without any proven benefit.
> That's not a problem with voter ID laws though. This is a red herring.
A common argument against voter ID laws is that they are of a lineage with historic disenfranchisement mechanisms in the US. Strategically making it difficult to get a newly-required voter ID is a direct descendant of the voter suppression schemes our parents fought against. It's absolutely relevant to bring in recent history.
> This is patently false. I just personally went through this. You absolutely have to show up to a SSA office and bring documentation.
Did you lose your card, or need a replacement in a hurry? For decades, newborns have been able to be issued cards without anyone showing up at an SSA office. (Yes, I have personally done this for an infant. I can confirm that you fill out a form and they mail you a card, just like you'd expect.) SSA also has a site where residents of many states can request a replacement card online if they have state ID: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html.
[Edit: The SSA forms indicate that even replacements for adult citizens can be done via mail. It would be fair for you to mention that you had an atypical situation that required you to go in to get a card, but that this is not required.]
If voter ID proponents start advocating for Social Security cards or other 100% free-by-mail IDs as voter documents, a lot of the opposition would go away. But then, so would the perceived partisan benefit, so that's not in the cards.
Not really, no: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class
"In 2005, sociologists William Thompson and Joseph Hickey estimate an income range of roughly $35,000 to $75,000 for the lower middle class and $100,000 or more for the upper middle class."
That encompasses the likes of 9-to-5ers, licensed electricians, oil field workers, etc.
>It's worse for (say) unemployed people with no transportation. This is to say nothing of the disabled, bedridden, etc. There are significant numbers of people for whom this is an unnecessary burden.
It's probably even easier. With unemployment benefits, additional stimulus, and lots of time on their hands, it's a perfect time to get their voter ID. Disabled and bedridden were equally disadvantaged under prior systems; this is a red herring.
>And again -- this burden is significantly higher than the requirement placed on residents who wish to carry shotguns into restaurants.
Categorically wrong. You need a photo ID to purchase a firearm, and some states require a license to carry long guns. Other states outright ban open carry of long guns.
>Voter ID laws have not been shown to reduce voter fraud. At best, they add cost and bureaucracy without any proven benefit.
Voter ID laws have been shown to reduce and/or prevent certain types of voter fraud, though indeed voter fraud is rare. At best, they prevent voter fraud, speed up the actual voting process at poll sites, reduce certain types of errors, etc.
>A common argument against voter ID laws is that they are of a lineage with historic disenfranchisement mechanisms in the US.
It's a common argument, but it's more of a conspiracy theory without any hard numbers to back it up.
>Strategically making it difficult to get a newly-required voter ID is a direct descendant of the voter suppression schemes our parents fought against. It's absolutely relevant to bring in recent history.
It's not difficult, nor do voter ID laws suppress voter turn out. Unproven conspiracy theories have nothing to do with recent history.
>Did you lose your card, or need a replacement in a hurry?
I needed to change my name, which most married females do. Nonetheless, if you lose your voter ID card and you don't have to make a change, you can similarly get a replacement without showing up to an office. This makes your entire point moot.
>For decades, newborns have been able to be issued cards without anyone showing up at an SSA office. (Yes, I have personally done this for an infant. I can confirm that you fill out a form and they mail you a card, just like you'd expect.) SSA also has a site where residents of many states can request a replacement card online if they have state ID: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/replacement-card.html.
That website specifically outlines that you need a "driver's license or a state-issued identification card from one of the many participating states.", so, again, that absolutely negates your point.
>[Edit: The SSA forms indicate that even replacements for adult citizens can be done via mail. It would be fair for you to mention that you had an atypical situation that required you to go in to get a card, but that this is not required.]
Changing your name is not an atypical situation. About 80% of married females end up changing their name. Also, the SSA form literally outlines that you need a state issued ID... like a driver's license that you can use for voting!
>If voter ID proponents start advocating for Social Security cards or other 100% free-by-mail IDs as voter documents, a lot of the opposition would go away.
As I posted above, voter ID proponents are almost universally for 100% free IDs as voter documents, Texas being a fine example: https://www.votetexas.gov/mobile/id-faqs.htm
The opposition is still there though.
>But then, so would the perceived partisan benefit, so that's not in the cards.
There is no effect on voter turn out, nor is there a partisan benefit. One of the supposedly most "at risk" groups to be suppressed by voter ID laws are the elderly. They overwhelmingly vote Republican.
People keep buying into this nonsensical argument about voter id suppressing poor people, minorities etc but all they do is patronize and virtue signal. Why don't you admit the real reason - that Democrats won't be able to cheat if there were voter ID? Just like now they are trying to even remove signature verification from the mail in votes. It's all for cheating to gain as much power while calling the other side names. It's so obvious but people keep lying.
If the US wants to remain an actual representative democracy/republic [0] we have to treat attempts at keeping voters out of the polls as the threat they are. These voter ID law pushes never come with a commensurate program to find, ID, and register groups without IDs and I think that gives the game away even before the emails came out explicitly saying these were targeted attacks at legitimate voters.
[0] Just heading off the pedantic "ThEy'Re NoT a DeMoCrAcY" crowd
| if it were the other way around they would oppose it.
?
In the USA this generally disenfranchises minorities, people from lower socioeconomic status, or those for whom English (and navigating complex information in English) is not a primary language.
If the government would MANDATE voter ID but then also gave 4 years for everyone to get one and made it nearly free, then I think much of the opposition would be gone.
I'm not worried that my position is going to change anytime soon.
A $40 poll tax that "99.99% of people can afford" is still a poll tax.
And if you can't pay for it, the government give it for free anyway.
Wouldn't that be possible in the US? Most people would happy to spend the (like) $40 to get a drivers license?
If you think the Republicans are pushing for a national ID and the Democrats are blocking them, you also don't understand the US political parties.
Meanwhile Republicans are very into requiring ID to vote, and a free Federal ID is a great way to allow for that while also solving a bunch of other problems that amount to a bunch of extra work, risk, and stress for normal people, but there's no way they'll join the (AFAIK) minority of Democrats supporting it to get it through, because they like ID to vote but hate, like, good, efficient ID systems, at the same time.
Opposition's mostly fear of government misuse, with overlap with a minority of people really certain it's a sign of the end times and marks us as servants of the Devil or something (I guess it's not when it's in other countries, or maybe those people are all servants of the Devil now, IDK). Democrats fear Republicans will use it to target minorities or set up rules effectively non-personing parts of the citizenry by denying them IDs, after they're (the IDs) made super-important. Republicans are afraid they'll be used to round up guns or track militia members or something. Basically a bunch of people on both sides are afraid of it, so it's a dead issue.
Five figures a year for another five figures of risk exposure, and none of it even applies except at about (optimistically) 1/3 of providers in one state—wrong hospital a mile from your house, you're uninsured. Travel out of state and get in a car wreck without getting some kind of travel insurance ahead of time which'll probably also find a way not to pay in the fine print anyway, like you're going to f#cking Colombia, you're uninsured. Ugh. This friggin' country.
(for those outside the US, you can translate "you're uninsured" to "you are definitely going bankrupt if you actually need a hospital for anything. If you're very lucky you'll still manage to get sufficient care before they realize you have no money left. And then if you also lose your job as a result of the health issue it gets really bad but at least you might get government insurance then, after it's too late to save you from permanent poverty.")
[EDIT] oh, and yes, that's about as good as it gets in my state—that's not, like, the worst option, that's ~ every option. Almost every insurance provider has left the individual (i.e. non-employer-provided) market, leaving bottom-feeders who've figured out new ways to deliver nearly-useless coverage while technically complying with the ACA, plus a few "non-compliant" coverage options that, aside from being crap (but at least cheap crap, instead of expensive crap) expose you to tax liabilities, if the Feds ever decide to start enforcing those again.
Knowing hospitals you'd end up with five debts from different companies from one uninsured post-heart-attack stabilization in one room at one ER. This also makes it nearly impossible to actually know you're covered for anything—one of those entities might not "take" your insurance, and now all that money you paid is useless and you're screwed anyway.
Navigating US healthcare feels like performing voodoo magic and tea-leaf-reading with some combination of your physical and financial health on the line, trying to balance it so if something goes wrong both are only badly harmed rather than catastrophically harmed.
[EDIT] on the plus side if you start off poor there's a decent chance the government does cover your health care, though it makes sure to make maintaining that super stressful—it's just that it's all set up so the health care system eventually gets a huge chunk of everyone's money, if they have any, and often all of the money, sooner or later. May not apply to the super rich but otherwise you're either poor and covered, or not-poor-but-not-rich and hoping you get the right roll on the dice so the healthcare system doesn't find a way to take all your money. And it is in all cases incredibly stressful even when you're not sick.
Hint - it's not.
Seems like you aren't in the US so maybe you don't know the history. Basically the US has a very long history of white supremacists protecting their own power and wealth at the expense of non-white people through disenfranchisement. This continues today. I'm arguing from the point of view that this is bad and should not be a basis for policy.
It's not that it's impossible for some practical reason, the problem is that the republican party (which still holds a huge amount of power at the federal, state, and local level even when they don't hold the presidency) actively wants to deprive people of their voting privilege because they suspect those people might decide to vote against them.
In America, when voting license legislation is passed, the government shutdown DMVs making it difficult and expensive to get a voting license.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
> This isn't a difficult problem to solve but it seems like the Democrats are trying to stonewall it any chance they get.
You miss the entire bigger picture when you don't mention that Republicans have been consistently against federal ID laws of any sort, not Democrats. That shows the real motives in play.
I'd love to see required ID for voting and federal ID laws (together, all at once), as would most left leaning people. It'd be chump change to implement in the scheme of the US government. The fact it has not been done for as long as this issue has been talked about (at least a decade now) makes it clear what's actually going on.
You also have to look at the history. To have the stance of pro voter ID laws but anti-federal ID is just a modern day extension of Jim Crow.
Are there tax liabilities that depend on one's citizenship?
So the government could automatically issue every voting age person a passport, and it becomes mandatory to vote.
Doesn't seem too painful to me.
1. Passports requires a picture which the government does not have.
2. The government requires an up to date address to send the passport to which the government does not have.
3. The government needs an up to date list of eligible voters which it does not have.
I'm sure there are more issues but it wouldn't work and would be quite painful.
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/312055-feds-closin...
When the US implements voting licenses, they shut down DMVs and make people buy in to their right to vote.
There is already significant voter disenfranchisement in the United States. Adding an additional requirement (which likely costs money and time) surely will not reduce disenfranchisement. What do you not buy?
The whole concept of a federal personnummer/identitetskort - in their Swedish incarnations - and any benefits/conveniences offered by that sort of system is ideologically abhorrent to a (large?) portion of the US population.
Also, if I am not mistaken, is an ID not mandatory when using public transport?
I lived without an ID for quite some time.
You mean outside of the Schengen area, right? Are you sure that "everybody" does that?
The disenfranchisement argument is one of the worst-sourced claims floating around the public sphere. And it's transparently bogus. Photo IDs are essentially mandatory for participation in civic life in the US. Everyone has them.
* https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/08/voter-id-laws-wh...
* https://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-la...
* https://rewire.news/ablc/2014/10/16/well-actually-pretty-har...
Voting is enshrined in the constitution as a fundamental right. Not everyone can get a photo ID, especially when the state doesn't want them to.
That's such an asinine and patronizing comment. People need to stop treating us minorities as some stupid and incapable people. Every single adult is capable of getting a photo ID - if they can be bothered to vote, they can be bothered to spend a few minutes getting a photo ID.
The real reason people oppose voter ID is because democrats won't be able to cheat. Voting is enshrined in the constitution as a fundamental right but cheating is not enshrined.
Also interesting how all 3 sources you linked are from radical left to left leaning sources.
Some people may genuinely care about voter suppression, whether you think it's a non-issue or not. I wouldn't be so quick to assume malice.
I don't buy the argument that it disenfranchises voters. Even the poorest in my country are able to vote despite having these voter ID restrictions. India also has some form of voter ID too, and their population is almost triple the American population and substantially poorer.
I can't help but think that there is some kind of malicious intent behind the opposition to voter ID, but it is unfortunately very difficult to prove.