Photo ID's cost money. And they are now required in many states in order to vote.
The days of Jim Crow are officially over, but poll-tax equivalents are
newly thriving, through restrictive voter registration and ID
requirements, shorter poll hours and various other restrictions and red
tape that cost Americans time and money if they wish to cast a ballot.
As one study by a Harvard Law School
researcher found, the price for obtaining a legally recognized voter
identification card can range from $75 to $175, when you include the
costs associated with documentation, travel and waiting time. (For
context, the actual poll tax that the Supreme Court struck down in 1966 was just $1.50, or about $11 in today’s dollars.)
Catherine Rampell: Voter suppression laws are already deciding elections - The Washington Post
The big question that comes to mind when reading this article is whether it would be preferred to have a higher fraudulent voting rate, or if we would prefer people t have identification and charge an indirect voting tax. The article does not provide statistics on previous voting-fraud but there have been several cases where it has been an issue. In either case, the results of the election can be skewed because of the policy in place. Personally I lean toward risking fraudulent voting, because think that voting is a right granted to the people. If an ~$11 tax was unconstitutional than ~$75 for an I.D. is required in order to exercise this right should be unconstitutional as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat strikes me most is how expensive a voter identification card can be. In addition to being costly, it also time consuming to register. These two factors alone, could deter several people from going to the polls. Ultimately, I agree with Scott in that I would also be more willing to risk fraudulent voting to allow more people the proper opportunity to vote. I also don't believe that the pricey voter identification card is constitutional. If people can provide documentation that they are in fact a citizen, then why should there be a fee for a card that states they've done so?
ReplyDeleteScott, your comment reminds me of a previous discussion thread we've had on the blog. I think that your concern about fraud versus an indirect voting tax is an important debate. However, an interesting point that the previous article on the blog brought up is that for one, reported cases of in-person voting fraud are rare. And more interestingly to me, it pointed out that in-person voter fraud, which voter ID laws aim to prevent, is not the easiest or most common way to rig elections. Instead it is through absentee ballot voting, which has significantly less strict identification requirements.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Frontline article below, targeting absentee ballot voting less, even though it is a larger source of voting fraud is cause for concern. Especially considering that people who vote absentee tend to be older and white, compared to those without identification who tend to be low income minorities. This fact alone is discriminatory, and is particularly problematic because many republicans are targeting only the form of voter fraud that negatively impacts their results.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/
I agree with Q. If people can provide the documentation that they are indeed citizens, there should be no charge for a voter identification card. However, I do think fraudulent voting is a big issue that needs to be monitored closely. I think voter identification cards should be free, but by no means should we relax standards on needing proper identification to vote.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Clay and Q. The cost of obtaining a legally recognized voter identification card is too costly and I still do not understand the reason why it was needed. What is the point of passport and driver license if it is not enough to prove their own identification.
ReplyDelete