Voter ID laws vs biometric ID

[Ma'ake]

The Lt Governor of Pennsyvania recently crowed that their passing of a Voter ID law will deliver Pennsyvania to Romney. This seems to confirm the suspicion that these laws are more about vote suppression than they are about preventing (alleged) widespread voting fraud.

Supposedly 9+% of black voters in PA don't have the required ID.

This seems incredible - how do you NOT have proper ID if you have a checking account, drive a car, have credit cards, etc. Well, there are actually a fair number in our society that don't engage in these practices, which is why Walmart had aims to enter the banking business several years ago. Something like 30% of Walmart customers don't have bank accounts.

Mexico decided it was important enough to their society to encourage people to vote. They implemented a Voter ID program that provides positive ID of the voter via biometric means, yet ensures privacy.

Leonard Pitts does a better job explaining the issue and potential solution than I am: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,6451192.story

Is this Voter ID system an idea conservatives could support?

[RobinFinderson]

Biometric ID will never pass the conservative boogeyman test. This is, IMO, evidence that supports the notion that the entire voter ID movement is an attempt to disenfranchise the democratic voters.

Consider the basic fingerprint as one biometric ID. Certain conservatives would never allow themselves to be fingerprinted by the government, because they are paranoid (perhaps justifiably), and so they would self-select OUT of voting, if fingerprinting were the preferred form of ID. Conservatives would never support voter ID that stood to disproportionately disenfranchise conservative voters.

So the ID has to be good (photo ID), but not too good (biometric ID). It needs to be losable (especially easy to do for something that only gets used once or twice a year), a burden to obtain for people without cars and bank accounts, and easily forged.

Nobody loses a fingerprint. Pass strong laws the prevent the use of voter fingerprints by law enforcement, and let us pass a voter ID law that can't be circumvented by a kid with a color laser printer and a laminating machine.

[Uncle Ted]

Biometric ID will never pass the conservative boogeyman test. This is, IMO, evidence that supports the notion that the entire voter ID movement is an attempt to disenfranchise the democratic voters.

Consider the basic fingerprint as one biometric ID. Certain conservatives would never allow themselves to be fingerprinted by the government, because they are paranoid (perhaps justifiably), and so they would self-select OUT of voting, if fingerprinting were the preferred form of ID. Conservatives would never support voter ID that stood to disproportionately disenfranchise conservative voters.

So the ID has to be good (photo ID), but not too good (biometric ID). It needs to be losable (especially easy to do for something that only gets used once or twice a year), a burden to obtain for people without cars and bank accounts, and easily forged.

Nobody loses a fingerprint. Pass strong laws the prevent the use of voter fingerprints by law enforcement, and let us pass a voter ID law that can't be circumvented by a kid with a color laser printer and a laminating machine.

Some people don't have fingerprints or go to great pains to have them altered. I personally have fingerprints that are very faint. I had to get my fingerprints taken multiple times when I was getting my CHL because they were unacceptable by the FBI. Finally, the FBI noted that I had very faint fingerprints.

The solution is pretty simple. Folks are required to register to vote. Therefore, when they come in to register (and show their birth certificate, photo IDs, etc) just capture their picture then. When they go to vote their picture can be retrieved from the database to validate they are, indeed, a registered voter. The democrats can't complain about disenfranchising people because it is already a requirement to be registered. Just change what is required to be registered (i.e. having your picture taken or using the picture that is already in the government databases for drivers licenses, etc).

[RobinFinderson]

Some people don't have fingerprints or go to great pains to have them altered. I personally have fingerprints that are very faint. I had to get my fingerprints taken multiple times when I was getting my CHL because they were unacceptable by the FBI. Finally, the FBI noted that I had very faint fingerprints.

The solution is pretty simple. Folks are required to register to vote. Therefore, when they come in to register (and show their birth certificate, photo IDs, etc) just capture their picture then. When they go to vote their picture can be retrieved from the database to validate they are, indeed, a registered voter. The democrats can't complain about disenfranchising people because it is already a requirement to be registered. Just change what is required to be registered (i.e. having your picture taken or using the picture that is already in the government databases for drivers licenses, etc).

I won't directly address your voter registration suggestions, which might be good ones, but still seem to pose the risk of disenfranchising voters who lose an ID on election day.

It seems incredible to base an argument against the use of fingerprints on the extremely rare few people whose fingerprints would challenge the system. Let me ask you a very simple question -- which do you think would be easier to perpetrate: stealing an election based on the use of people with no fingerprints and light fingerprints, or stealing an election based on the use of forged ID's and photo manipulation?

[Uncle Ted]

The Lt Governor of Pennsyvania recently crowed that their passing of a Voter ID law will deliver Pennsyvania to Romney. This seems to confirm the suspicion that these laws are more about vote suppression than they are about preventing (alleged) widespread voting fraud.

Supposedly 9+% of black voters in PA don't have the required ID.

This seems incredible - how do you NOT have proper ID if you have a checking account, drive a car, have credit cards, etc. Well, there are actually a fair number in our society that don't engage in these practices, which is why Walmart had aims to enter the banking business several years ago. Something like 30% of Walmart customers don't have bank accounts.

Mexico decided it was important enough to their society to encourage people to vote. They implemented a Voter ID program that provides positive ID of the voter via biometric means, yet ensures privacy.

Leonard Pitts does a better job explaining the issue and potential solution than I am: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,6451192.story

Is this Voter ID system an idea conservatives could support?

I don't see how this solves the problem that voters feeling disenfranchised because they now have to get an ID card. Mexico has a national ID card which is required to vote. If that is adopted here then everyone including the 9% that don't have any form of ID now have to get an ID.

[YOUTUBE]IR8XKDLw7WY[/YOUTUBE]

[Uncle Ted]

I won't directly address your voter registration suggestions, which might be good ones, but still seem to pose the risk of disenfranchising voters who lose an ID on election day.

It seems incredible to base an argument against the use of fingerprints on the extremely rare few people whose fingerprints would challenge the system. Let me ask you a very simple question -- which do you think would be easier to perpetrate: stealing an election based on the use of people with no fingerprints and light fingerprints, or stealing an election based on the use of forged ID's and photo manipulation?

I am proposing that ID cards still not be required but that the voter registration process include collecting photo ID information. Then when the voter comes to the designated voting poll their picture would be brought up on the computer as part of the verification process. Thus there is no ID that can be lost on election day because IDs are still not required. What is required is being registered and capturing the photo information.

Verifying fingerprints at the polling stations would be impractical. Computers have a hard time doing this with 100% accuracy and there are not enough fingerprint experts to go around. Of course, law enforcement would love it if they could tap into this fingerprint database to solve a lot of those unsolved crimes. Criminals would hate it because the government would have their fingerprints. I am guessing they would feel disenfranchised because they don't want to have to submit their fingerprints in order to vote.

[RobinFinderson]

I am proposing that ID cards still not be required but that the voter registration process include collecting photo ID information. Then when the voter comes to the designated voting poll their picture would be brought up on the computer as part of the verification process. Thus there is no ID that can be lost on election day because IDs are still not required. What is required is being registered and capturing the photo information.

Verifying fingerprints at the polling stations would be impractical. Computers have a hard time doing this with 100% accuracy and there are not enough fingerprint experts to go around. Of course, law enforcement would love it if they could tap into this fingerprint database to solve a lot of those unsolved crimes. Criminals would hate it because the government would have their fingerprints. I am guessing they would feel disenfranchised because they don't want to have to submit their fingerprints in order to vote.

So someone goes in and registers under twenty different names, using forged photo ID and documents, and then shows up to vote without photo ID. She gives her different names at different polling locations, and sure enough, a photo pops up that looks like the person. Sounds like an easy way to perpetrate voter fraud.

Regarding the difficulty that computers have with identifying fingerprints according to a database, two questions -- are you sure that this is the case when the fingerprints are collected under ideal conditions (on a dedicated fingerprint scanner)? Are you sure that this is the case when the fingerprints would be compared to a relatively small fingerprint database of registered voters, as opposed to the huge databases, and huge number of databases, representing all of the state and national fingerprint databases, many of which are partials from crime scenes that have been scanned using old technology?

My point is, maybe there is a reason that computer-assisted fingerprint checks would be more complex for criminal investigations than they would be for voter ID.

[Uncle Ted]

So someone goes in and registers under twenty different names, using forged photo ID and documents, and then shows up to vote without photo ID. She gives her different names at different polling locations, and sure enough, a photo pops up that looks like the person. Sounds like an easy way to perpetrate voter fraud.

The same laws that govern using fake IDs would apply. Facial recognition software could run on the photo ID database all year long checking for potential voter fraud cases to investigate. If found guilty she could face five years in prison for each case of voter fraud, not counting using a false ID.

Please note that identical twins have very similar fingerprints. I have personally seen twins that can pass as each other using their fingerprints on a biometrical reader. Therefore, someone could claim claim they have an identical twin if a match comes up while registering and accomplish the same evil end goal.

Regarding the difficulty that computers have with identifying fingerprints according to a database, two questions -- are you sure that this is the case when the fingerprints are collected under ideal conditions (on a dedicated fingerprint scanner)? Are you sure that this is the case when the fingerprints would be compared to a relatively small fingerprint database of registered voters, as opposed to the huge databases, and huge number of databases, representing all of the state and national fingerprint databases, many of which are partials from crime scenes that have been scanned using old technology?

My point is, maybe there is a reason that computer-assisted fingerprint checks would be more complex for criminal investigations than they would be for voter ID.

These biometrical readers are not inexpensive (adding a lot of cost to the election process especially given they are only used maybe once or twice a year), could cause longer lines at the polls, and, therefore, give people yet another reason to not to vote.
Fingerprints and other biometrics would be a good way to validate a persons identity but I don't see it being practical for voting.

[pellegrino]

I am proposing that ID cards still not be required but that the voter registration process include collecting photo ID information. Then when the voter comes to the designated voting poll their picture would be brought up on the computer as part of the verification process. Thus there is no ID that can be lost on election day because IDs are still not required. What is required is being registered and capturing the photo information.

Verifying fingerprints at the polling stations would be impractical. Computers have a hard time doing this with 100% accuracy and there are not enough fingerprint experts to go around. Of course, law enforcement would love it if they could tap into this fingerprint database to solve a lot of those unsolved crimes. Criminals would hate it because the government would have their fingerprints. I am guessing they would feel disenfranchised because they don't want to have to submit their fingerprints in order to vote.

This is the primary reason I would oppose fingerprinting ID in any situation, computers just don't work accurately enough for the expense.

[ERCougar]

I like the required registration idea, where everyone is then issued photo ID. If you don't care enough to register, I don't care enough about your opinion.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The Lt Governor of Pennsyvania recently crowed that their passing of a Voter ID law will deliver Pennsyvania to Romney. This seems to confirm the suspicion that these laws are more about vote suppression than they are about preventing (alleged) widespread voting fraud.

Supposedly 9+% of black voters in PA don't have the required ID.

This seems incredible - how do you NOT have proper ID if you have a checking account, drive a car, have credit cards, etc. Well, there are actually a fair number in our society that don't engage in these practices, which is why Walmart had aims to enter the banking business several years ago. Something like 30% of Walmart customers don't have bank accounts.

Mexico decided it was important enough to their society to encourage people to vote. They implemented a Voter ID program that provides positive ID of the voter via biometric means, yet ensures privacy.

Leonard Pitts does a better job explaining the issue and potential solution than I am: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,6451192.story

Is this Voter ID system an idea conservatives could support?

I think it's more about voter fraud suppression.

[Ma'ake]

I think it's more about voter fraud suppression.

If 9% of Pennsylvania Democrats don't have the right kind of ID, maybe you should be worried about more than voting fraud, like inaccurate census data.

If the GOP fear of voter fraud is really valid, maybe Pennsylvania has been allocated too many Congressional seats. This appears to be a federal issue that the Obama Administration should aggressively investigate.

Maybe there really aren't that many black people in Pennsylvania - maybe there aren't that many brown people in Nevada.

Where are Republican sentinals on this issue? This has major demographic ramifications for your party!

(sheesh)

[Pelado]

If 9% of Pennsylvania Democrats don't have the right kind of ID, maybe you should be worried about more than voting fraud, like inaccurate census data.

If the GOP fear of voter fraud is really valid, maybe Pennsylvania has been allocated too many Congressional seats. This appears to be a federal issue that the Obama Administration should aggressively investigate.

Maybe there really aren't that many black people in Pennsylvania - maybe there aren't that many brown people in Nevada.

Where are Republican sentinals on this issue? This has major demographic ramifications for your party!

(sheesh)

Since when is ID required for the census?

[Color Me Badd Fan]

If 9% of Pennsylvania Democrats don't have the right kind of ID, maybe you should be worried about more than voting fraud, like inaccurate census data.

If the GOP fear of voter fraud is really valid, maybe Pennsylvania has been allocated too many Congressional seats. This appears to be a federal issue that the Obama Administration should aggressively investigate.

Maybe there really aren't that many black people in Pennsylvania - maybe there aren't that many brown people in Nevada.

Where are Republican sentinals on this issue? This has major demographic ramifications for your party!

(sheesh)

Obama's too busy looking at the two Mexicans that work at the ranch belonging to the Romney donor from Idaho. His Labor Department is focusing like a laser on cracking down there. I'm not sure he's ready to handle a census issue involving Pennsylvania. If there were an issue, the electoral votes would probably just shift to Texas or Arizona.

Besides, half of those 9% of Democrats probably are dead so that's why they don't have proper ID. I'm not going to lose sleep over dead people not voting.