On its opening weekend, I made sure to attend a screening of Jonah Hill’s new comedy “21 Jump Street.” Due to theatre policy however, the ticket clerk insisted on verifying my identity and age in order to proceed with the purchase of my tickets. Though a humorous film, I exited the cinema feeling quite frightened knowing that Malco Theatres (a Southern movie theatre chain) currently has tougher identification procedures to attend its ‘R’ rated films than 80 percent of the country when voting for the next President of the United States. This contrast reminded me of the ‘Which of the following doesn’t belong?’ questions posed on standardized elementary school exams, in which students would select the obvious outlier from the subset. In the instance of voter identification laws, such a question would resemble:
Which of the following doesn’t belong?
(a) Boarding an airplane, (b) bank transactions, (c) purchasing alcohol, (d) voting for the President of the United States.
When answering the above question, Republicans comprehend the need to verify one’s identity in all facets of modern culture, and would thus resent the fact that option ‘d’ can be named accurate. Conversely, Democrats view the question as one that necessitates an option (e) – none of the above, as they have consistently expressed their preference of exempting voting as the sector of society in which verification should be deemed unnecessary.
Consider for example the position of my current Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) and current Regional Whip for the Democratic caucus in Congress. With a straight face, Congressman Cohen claimed that the responsibility to prevent voter fraud rests on “precinct captains, who are supposed to know who people are.” I must ask the Congressman for assistance with locating the requirement of personally knowing all eligible voters in one’s precinct on the application to volunteer on Election Day.
To compliment this incoherent and out of touch logic, Democrats continuously offer the following three myths as their primary arguments against voter ID laws.
Myth 1: Requiring the presentation of government issued identification is not necessary and would lower turnout rates.
The necessity to implement effective voter identification laws stems from the related concerns of voter fraud and voter turnout rates. Beginning with the former, voter fraud has demonstrated its ability to not only influence elections, but also determine them. Most recently, fifty illegal Somalian votes were cast in a 2010 Missouri state legislature election decided by a single vote. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stated that in recent years, his office “has secured more than 50 voter fraud convictions. Those include a woman who voted in place of her dead mother, a political operative who cast ballots for two people, and a city councilmember who registered foreign nationals to vote in an election decided by 19 votes.” Additionally, as The Heritage Foundation’s senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky explains, liberal fraud denialists conveniently ignore “a 1996 congressional race in California that was almost overturned by hundreds of votes illegally cast by noncitizens and a 1984 grand jury in Brooklyn revealed a 14-year conspiracy of fraudulent voting through.”
While illegal votes have certainly proven their ability to skew outcomes of elections, the true harm of voter fraud rests in its role towards creating the greatest threat towards our democracy: low rates of voter turnout due to low rates of voter confidence. According to a recent study conducted by American University, 16.6% of voters (within the sample of the states tested) reported seeing or hearing about voter fraud at their own polling location. However, the perception of voter fraud at other locations quadrupled to a staggering 64% among these same voters. This essentially explains that while tangible voter fraud is present, the mere perception of voter fraud is tremendously greater. Unfortunately, we are to blame. Society claims responsibility for fueling the far too common mindset in which voters believe that their ballots bear no impact on the result of the election due to voter fraud. Such distrust only heightens when Americans learn that government-funded organizations such as ACORN admit to filling out registration forms with names they found in phone books. Lack of voter turnout due to lack of voter confidence is the unseen consequence of voter fraud, and has deprived electoral outcomes from truly reflecting the will and desires of the American people. Therefore, voter fraud is responsible for the disenfranchisement of would-be honest and civically engaged voters.
Further, one should assess the impact of Congressman Cohen’s ‘solution’ on the democratic threat of lower voter confidence. To do so, simply as ask yourself the following three questions:
(1) What would happen to your confidence in flying knowing that TSA officers were supposed to personally know all of their travelers (in lieu of identification) before permitting them to proceed to board?
(2) What would happen to your confidence in depositing money knowing that your bank’s tellers were supposed to personally know all of their customers (in lieu of identification) before dispensing them cash?
(3) What would happen to your confidence in sending your underage children to the convenience store if all cashiers were supposed to personally know their customers (in lieu of identification) before selling them alcohol?
In all three scenarios, your confidence in each of the respective institutions would clearly plummet. So why then must you accept lessened standards when selecting the leader of the free world? The answer is that you do not have to. The voter ID law is a unique solution that combats both forms of voter fraud: illegal electoral skews at the voting booth and tragically low confidence in the electoral process. As proof, when asked if the electoral system would be more trusted with the introduction of voter ID laws, 70% of the registered voters surveyed in the American University study responded in the affirmative.
Myth 2: Requiring the presentation of government issued identification to vote disenfranchises poor Americans and minorities as a Jim Crow law.
Governor Tom Corbett’s recent signing of House Bill 934 has earned Pennsylvania the reputation of possessing some of the nation’s toughest voter ID requirements. The statute requires Pennsylvania voters to present valid identification, which can be a driver’s license, military ID, passport, or an ID card from a state-accredited colleges universities and state-licensed care facilities.
As a response to this verification process, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party (PDP) claims that “instead of making the process fairer, this plan would disenfranchise vulnerable populations, like seniors, minorities, and youth, who are less likely to have photo IDs. It would also make it more difficult for all Pennsylvanians to exercise their right to vote at a time when we should be encouraging more voting, not less.” However, the PDP conveniently ignores a certain segment of HB 934, which mandates that “the (Pennsylvania) Department of Transportation shall issue an identification card at no cost to any registered elector. ” In fact, all of the states that require voter identification also provide a free photo ID to anyone who can’t afford one. In addition to such overwhelming strides for those economically unable to purchase an id (which can be as low as $3), the Pennsylvania law provides accommodations for those with a religious objection to being photographed, and provides any registered voter without a valid photo ID with a provisional ballot, permitting six days to show valid identification.
Despite such a reasonable policy in one of the nation’s toughest voter ID states, Democrats who have made it their mission to demonize Republicans in efforts to energize their electoral base. Consider the words of current Pennsylvania State Rep. James Roebuck, (D-Philadelphia), who claimed that this ‘discriminatory’ legislation is a “modern-day Jim Crow law”. Roebuck’s outrageous and unfair accusation echoes the absurdities expressed by current DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who bluntly stated that the Republicans “want to literally drag us all the way back to Jim Crow-era laws.” Similarly, Columbia University professor and liberal commentator John McWhorter called voter ID laws “vile, disgusting strategy to suppress the black vote.”
By voicing sentiments that are so saturated with inflammatory rhetoric, Roebuck, the DNC, and countless liberal advocates cast a shadow on our valued conviction of democracy by distorting the facts, and quite simply, the meaning of discrimination. By speaking such lies, Roebuck and his ideological affiliates have laughed in the faces of those who suffered due to the wrath of the Crow laws by comparing their horrendous conditions to the rights offered to and enjoyed by voters in states requiring identification.
Myth 3: Requiring the presentation of government issued identification to vote disenfranchises elderly Americans.
Extending beyond Pennsylvania’s concern for those unable to afford government issued identification, liberal challengers of HB 934 (Pennsylvania’s voter ID statute) commonly use an argument stating the cumbersome requirement placed upon senior citizens. Democrats feel as though the unique circumstance of the elderly necessitates an exemption from the requirement. As a matter of fact, so do Republicans. I would ask liberal adversaries of the voter ID law to reread pages twenty and twenty one of the bill, which states that “A qualified absentee elector shall not be required to provide proof of identification by an alternative ballot under the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act.” Such a provision provides an exception for the elderly and handicapped, and once again highlights how liberal Democrats have conveniently ignored legislative texts in favor of politically advantageous rhetoric.
Parker Mantell | University of Indiana at Bloomington | Bloomington, Indiana | @ParkerMantell
There’s an old saying; if something works, don’t fix it. We have a lot of people in this country who have a difficult time affording food on their table and of course being poor; they’re mostly Democrats.
Let’s also look at the reason why suddenly Republicans have decided that this issue is so important this year and why several states are pushing Voter ID laws. You would think by their actions that there has been wide-spread voter fraud all over the country, enough to affect elections. They know that’s not true at all. No, instead they realize that they’re losing ground with the American voters and they’re grasping at straws to keep their footing by finding ways to deny likely Democratic voters a right to vote.
I agree that IDs at the polls are a good idea but the truth is, at polling places that are located in mostly white neighborhoods that are most likely Republican strongholds, such as the one I live in, there won’t be much asking for IDs. Why? Because Republicans aren’t concerned about those places, just the ones where there are heavy Democratic turnouts.
It’s a shame Republicans can’t instead, take on policies that most Americans want instead of pushing to block voters from the polls and hoping to block turn out so that they can win an election. Don’t they know that eventually Democrats will get past this one by pushing to get all proper IDs?
Then what will be their next step in trying to hold on to control of government, even while they step away from the needs and desires of the majority of voters? I personally put nothing past the party of the wealthy in their desperation to keep their party from fading away into the Sunset. Saying that; we need another party that is a lot more moderate than what the Republican Party has become to replace the current Grand Old Party.
Any fraudulent vote is an afront to the Democratic process of elections. A single fraudulent vote cast by an illegal immigrant or by someone in the name of a deceased citizen cancels out one valid vote cast by an honest person who has taken the time to do their civic duty.
Since voter IDs are provided for free or just a couple of dollars, cost is not an issue. This leaves location – are poor/black people too inept to find their local DMV? NO. Are poor/black people too lazy to go to their local DMV? NO. 1) In metropolitan areas (where the majority of poor/black people live) public transport is easily available to take them to the DMV, which is considerably closer than in rural areas. 2) In rural areas they would already have transport to even get groceries, so they would already have ID.
Photo IDs are required in many aspects of our daily lives and I’d be hard pressed to find someone who doesn’t already have one. The Houston city animal pound demanded to see a photo-ID just so I could enter!
The excuses against voter ID are asinine and frankly, demeaning of the very people they claim to defend.
Times have changed. Call me a dreamer, but isn’t it time that the race factor be put to rest? That will be impossible, though, if we continue to adhere to statutes like Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Why, in 2012, the age of smart phones and cars that can park themselves, in an era where we have witnessed the legalization of gay marriage in a handful of states and the inauguration of the first African American president, why is Section 5 still relevant? Why aren’t we past this yet? Why are journalists, bloggers, and even the likes of Bill Clinton and Reverend Al Sharpton invoking Jim Crow laws in their rhetoric opposing newly proposed voter ID laws? Sharpton even went as far as to say, “Your water fountain is voter ID.” I’m sorry, Reverend, but it isn’t the 60’s anymore.
When the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted, it was a groundbreaking step in the right direction. The effort to clear the path for minorities to get to the voting booths, as well as encouraging those more ambitions individuals to seek elected office was seemingly unprecedented. It was necessary back then, but I like to think we have evolved since then. Now Section 5, which requires states to gain pre-clearance should they wish to change electoral rules in any manner, is just a crutch for those opposing any electoral changes that don’t play out in their favor.
As sure as the sun, when these voter ID laws were in their beginning stages, it did not take long for the angry rhetoric to ensue from those who opposed the laws. Florida Congresswoman Frederica Wilson spelled out her opinion very plainly: “All of a sudden after the 2008 election, these (voter ID laws) miraculously appear. Why? Because we have a black president in the White House and it is to stop all of the people of color from… coming out to vote, because they (the proponents of voter ID laws) know who they are targeting…” It is rhetoric of this nature that keeps us in the past and pushes us further from equality. She made it about race. Sharpton made it about race. Those proposing and advocating the voter ID laws have made no attempt to hide their agenda. They want to reduce voter fraud and ensure the integrity of the electoral process and rights. The opponents of these laws have made race a factor and Section 5 only encourages it. Various research has been conducted in a number states and much of it has concluded that voter fraud at the precincts is not where the primary problem lies. Even if that is the case where and how does race come into play?
As I said, times have changed and the abolishment of Section 5 needs to be added to that list of changes. Obtaining pre-clearance per Section 5 presents many issues. First, it’s costly. Litigation is never cheap. The costs of lawyers, research, etc. will only accrue expenses, which will ultimately be paid with funds that could be better spent elsewhere. Second, it takes time; time that can be better allocated to handling more important issues at both the state and federal levels. Who knows, maybe if the DOJ wasn’t so busy looking over the 5,000 Section 5 submissions or 50,000 voting change requests per year, instances like Fast and Furious may have been better under control. (A stretch but you get my point). Finally, pulling the race card is inevitable and we do not need a statute to legitimize it. Yes, people look different, are born into different circumstances, but if they are eligible to vote they have one thing in common, the most important thing: they are American. After all, it was President Obama who said, “There’s not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America,” and I could not agree more, but Section 5 is keeping America from becoming so united.
Aside from the issues of obtaining pre-clearance, the fact of the matter is, discrimination today is not what it once was. While some may consider it extremely prevalent, it is all about perception, and my perception is that it just is not the same. Regardless of those varying opinions, though, this is not a matter of the threat of history repeating itself. We are too advanced and too forward thinking of a nation to allow ourselves to revert back to the days of Jim Crow laws. Today, all Section 5 does is inhibit states like Texas and South Carolina from enacting laws protecting their voters’ rights and provides an easy way out for those who stand in opposition to those laws.
Minories most commonly vote for Democrats. States that are pushing voter ID are all Republican states except one. There is no signficant incident of voter fraud that impacted an election.
Yes, I’m sure this is all a coincidence and has nothing to do with these (Republican) states keeping (most likely Democrat) voters from the polls.
So a few crimes are okay, as long as not many people committing them and they don’t take up a large amount of court time?
How would you feel about your legitimate vote being cancelled out by a fraudulent vote?
…How about if a burglar broke into your home and stole a single inexepensive item? Would that be fine because they left everything else? Of course not!
Whatever happened to “Common-Sense Laws” that Liberals are always rabbitting on about. It seems to only be common-sense when it follows the party’s line.
How about the fact that according to a 2007 Replubican lead study by the Election Assistance Commission, it was determined that there is very little voter fraud?
Bascially, these laws are such a waste of tax payers dollars.
Chelle, do you show your ID when you vote? I have since I was 18 in order to ‘prove’ that I’m voting in the right district, precinct. The opposition is baseless, time and time again. 2007, compared to how many studies showing fraud. Everyone voting should show ID, I have since I was 18, why should it be any different. Not one person is being discrminated against for voting, they just have to ‘prove’ who they are. I mean, if I wanted to make a case that I’m being discrmininated against, I’m tired of all the forms when you go to the doctor and they want to know if you’re white, black, brown, yellow, purple, etc. But, that’s another story.
Nope, I show my voter id card and say my name. It’s then cross off the list. If every district required people to show their id like yours may (I say may because I don’t know your district or if its a volunteer not knowing that its not required) then these laws wouldn’t be needed.
Also, what does your comment have to do with any of the points I brought up? Voter fraud is not a major issue and this laws are costing tax payers.
Also, the reason you have to list your race on medical forms is because some races are more at risk for genetic conditions. Has nothing to do with discrimation.
So really, what’s your point?
I love it when Democrats compare a Republican idea they don’t like to Jim Crow Laws. Do they not realize that Jim Crow Laws were created by Democrats?
I had this discussion on Facebook yesterday. My 18 year old son has chosen not to drive and so he needed a photo ID. He purchased one for $15 at the DMV. As he’s unemployed, the $15 was not *easy* to come by, but he “sacrificed” some purchases to set the money aside. He is fortunate that he had a Passport (from a church mission trip) to prove as photo ID, although he also has access to his birth certificate. If he didn’t have the passport or certificate, he could have gone online and purchased one for about $30 at vitalchek.com OR written to the Department of Vital Records in the state of his birth and purchased one for approximately another $20.
$45-$50 is not a hardship for people to come by for an identification. I suspect they could “sacrifice” a new pair of Nike’s or a manicure or a pizza for the month or two to get the documentation they needed. But it’s easier to complain about being disenfranchised than it is to take action and get it done.
Except in a lot of people’s cases, its vote id or proper clothing or food.
It is amusing that you admit your 18 year old unemployed son had to adjust to afford it but ignore the face that there are families out there with unemployed parents. We’re in a Recession where the unemployed rate is extremely high.
In most states, at least I know in TX, you can obtain a state ID for $10. My blind friend, has had one since he was 18. 😉
Congrats, you know 1 out of 50 states. And I’m not sure what your blind friend has to do with this. Is he poor? Having to choose between buying food or paying the eletric bill?
Or am I supposed to be amazed that if a blind man can do anyone can because that’s not offense to him at all?
Unemployment is extremely high? I thought it was 8% and we were in the best recovery EVER?
There is no argument that has ever been presented that goes against ensuring that there is a process in place for 1 person, the right person, the verified right person, 1 vote. That is including a Supreme Court decisions. Present an argument that shows the unconstitutionality of voter id requirements please.
How about the fact that voting is a Constitional right and we shouldn’t place a price on that?
There is no widespread voter fraud. How long has this country managed voting without this issue? And now all of a sudden we got to fix a problem that doesn’t exist?
Again, why are you people so happy with the government spending money on problems that don’t exist? Voter fraud is not an issue.
Plain and simple the democrats know that’s only way they are getting Obama back in there. Great article!!