IS there a good argument against voter ID requirements?

[oxcoug]

If so, please share.

MN voters think there isn't, by a 76-18 margin.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/05/27/mn-voters-back-voter-id-amendment-7618/

[pellegrino]

so long as the government provides identification for free and without too much bureaucracy I don't see a problem with it.

However, I see this as a non issue either way. Have there been proven cases of voter fraud in the past decade? I've heard of a lot of allegations, but nothing that I'm aware of has come to court, which means the allegations lack substance. I'm happy to be proven wrong in this area, but I don't see voter fraud (meaning individuals voting multiple times in multiple precincts) as an issue.

IMO, the bigger potential for fraudulent elections is in the voting machines. How simple would it be to rig a machine to record votes incorrectly? When you compare the risk/reward for the two, it's a no-brainer that the best way to rig an election involves the fewest number of people possible and the most secret method available. Which would you rather do: employ a few hundred (thousand?) people to cast multiple votes, risking that some will be caught or later tell their story to the press, or bribe a few computer engineers at diebold to make sure their voting machine works in your favor?
Requiring ID for voters, while sensible and practical, will not cause elections to have any more integrity than they already do.

[oxcoug]

so long as the government provides identification for free and without too much bureaucracy I don't see a problem with it.

However, I see this as a non issue either way. Have there been proven cases of voter fraud in the past decade? I've heard of a lot of allegations, but nothing that I'm aware of has come to court, which means the allegations lack substance. I'm happy to be proven wrong in this area, but I don't see voter fraud (meaning individuals voting multiple times in multiple precincts) as an issue.

Yeah I don't know how much of a problem it is - but given how simple it is and given that a dude like me who is obviously into his 30s has to flash a government issue ID to walk into a sports bar (in some neighborhoods anyway), buy a cheese burger and watch basketball, it just seems like a bare minimum formality and I can't see why anyone would fight it.

[pellegrino]

Yeah I don't know how much of a problem it is - but given how simple it is and given that a dude like me who is obviously into his 30s has to flash a government issue ID to walk into a sports bar (in some neighborhoods anyway), buy a cheese burger and watch basketball, it just seems like a bare minimum formality and I can't see why anyone would fight it.

there was a bit on this on NPR the other day and as as I remember, the problem is that the tea party has appropriated this fight and they've brought race into it. I believe the MN tea party accused democrats of busing illegal immigrants around to different precincts during the 2008 election. Any time you accuse a minority group of doing something like that you tap into a well of strong emotions and passions which guarantee to make it a partisan fight, which it really shouldn't be.

I think a lot of people on the left are fighting it to ensure that nobody is disenfranchised, which seems somewhat ingenuous because if the government makes it free and easy to obtain the proper documentation then nobody will be disenfranchised except those who are too apathetic to register to vote in the first place.

On a side note, if they're requiring ID at the polls, they should require it for voter registration as well. It wouldn't be hard to list an ID number on the form and then verify it at a later date. I think the accuracy of the voter roll is equally, if not more important than identification on election day. Once again, this goes back to the ease of tampering with election results via the voting machine. How much easier is it to tamper with a precinct where the rolls are bloated with dead, no longer living there, or non-existent voters?

[Uncle Ted]

Democrats, no more shopping at walmart...

Democratic officials Wednesday launched a two-pronged attack on states with new laws requiring identification before voting, the highlight being a call to boycott Coke, Walmart and others that back a leading organization pushing for voter ID laws.

Coke was quick to react to the political boycott threat, pulling support from the targeted group just five hours after it was called. Walmart said that support for a group does not mean it backs every decision by those groups.

[Uncle Ted]

IMO, the bigger potential for fraudulent elections is in the voting machines. How simple would it be to rig a machine to record votes incorrectly? When you compare the risk/reward for the two, it's a no-brainer that the best way to rig an election involves the fewest number of people possible and the most secret method available. Which would you rather do: employ a few hundred (thousand?) people to cast multiple votes, risking that some will be caught or later tell their story to the press, or bribe a few computer engineers at diebold to make sure their voting machine works in your favor?

I don't have any problem with electronic voting machines as long as it makes a printed record that can be audited by the voter and officials. In other words, the voting machine should print a paper copy of the voting record that can be reviewed then placed into a locked ballot box. This paper trail then can be used to audit the voting if something is suspect or in the event of a recount.

[Katy Lied]

Not anymore.

All the arguments disappeared around WWII.

[frank ryan]

Having to pay for an ID to vote might be viewed by some as a poll tax

[beefytee]

I don't have any problem with electronic voting machines as long as it makes a printed record that can be audited by the voter and officials. In other words, the voting machine should print a paper copy of the voting record that can be reviewed then placed into a locked ballot box. This paper trail then can be used to audit the voting if something is suspect or in the event of a recount.

This.

[wuapinmon]

Having to pay for an ID to vote might be viewed by some as a poll tax

I think a simple solution to that problem is to make non-driving ids free-of-charge. If you want to drive, you should have to pay, but a state-issued id without driving privileges should be free.

[Uncle Ted]

Having to pay for an ID to vote might be viewed by some as a poll tax

Yes, in Texas the state offered free voter ID's for the estimated 800,000 of the people that don't already have either a Texas DL or Texas ID card. The Obama administration is attempting to block the law based on the fact some folks in the more rural areas would have to drive an 100 miles or more to get the ID card. The ruling from the court is still pending but is expected to be decided before the election.

[frank ryan]

Yes, in Texas the state offered free voter ID's for the estimated 800,000 of the people that don't already have either a Texas DL or Texas ID card. The Obama administration is attempting to block the law based on the fact some folks in the more rural areas would have to drive an 100 miles or more to get the ID card. The ruling from the court is still pending but is expected to be decided before the election.

I could support the requirement if no money was attached to getting the ID

[RobinFinderson]

Yeah I don't know how much of a problem it is - but given how simple it is and given that a dude like me who is obviously into his 30s has to flash a government issue ID to walk into a sports bar (in some neighborhoods anyway), buy a cheese burger and watch basketball, it just seems like a bare minimum formality and I can't see why anyone would fight it.

I think a good reason to oppose is simply this -- if you were to misplace the ID on the day of the election, you wouldn't get to vote. Not getting to vote is a much more serious consequence then getting turned away from a sports bar. It would serve to disenfranchise the forgetful, the absent minded, and the unlucky without necessarily offering significant reductions in voter fraud (which hasn't been established to be a significant problem in the first place).

[creekster]

I think a good reason to oppose is simply this -- if you were to misplace the ID on the day of the election, you wouldn't get to vote. Not getting to vote is a much more serious consequence then getting turned away from a sports bar. It would serve to disenfranchise the forgetful, the absent minded, and the unlucky without necessarily offering significant reductions in voter fraud (which hasn't been established to be a significant problem in the first place).

Good point. We should also eliminate passports to avoid leaving absent minded citizens stranded outside our borders

[Topper]

misplacing id is a problem? Doesn't voter responsibility play a roll?

Voting fraud is also a problem in some cities but the measure of which is undetermined. If the id's are available for free it seems the objections should be overcome.