Take Germany for example, or France as much as I can tell: You move, you register a new primary residency, where you vote. Your residency is also you voter registration (not sure why separating the two makes any sense). You leave the country permanently, you declare it, when your French, you can register at the consulate in the new country of residency. Guess what, you get your ballot by mail to that address.
Carrying passports or ID cards, check. No unidentified residents.
Dead voters, no problem. Registered residencies are constantly updated with birth and death certificates.
Voting by is, as is voting in general, a solved problem. Including paper trails and enough voting places for everyone. Voting happens on Sundays.
[0] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/north-carolina-voter-id/
[1] Again generally opposed by Republicans because it would mean more voters which demographically isn't good for them.
You could make the literal exact argument in reverse with at least as much credibility.
I notice that you say you could but you actually didn't...
It doesn't really have the same ring, does it.
Homelessness and generally transient residency statuses come to mind. Still workable w/ ID cards though
What you suggest is actually illegal in the US since the 1980s by federal law and before that it was customary for us states not to track that information. On the public side it is illegal because requiring identification for almost any kind of state service must hinge on there being a specific reason inherent in the public service why the state government needs that information to provide a service. Only the federal government can require the kind of information that would commonly fall under what is required in an EU country.
Private businesses are actually indirectly forbidden by federal law from asking for any kind of information like this. If in the course of asking for such information the private business discovers or deduces the 'immigration status' of the person that business now has to explain the reason why it discovered that fact and the burden mostly falls on the business almost every conceivable case. Therefore, most businesses are certain never to ask about such information. The only information transmitted to the federal government (by federal law) is essentially a self-certified form filled out by an employee only in the course of seeking employment. The business is directly forbidden by law from asking anything about the immigration status of the person. The state can't do anything about this or indirectly require a private entity to act based on such information.
One can quickly see that there is no workable way under current federal law to make any kind of system you would see in the EU or most of the western world workable. You couldn't directly collect useful information about a person in almost any way and any information you could collect wouldn't be useful.
Here is the politically incorrect fact: It makes immigration enforcement almost impossible if you can't restrict access to private employment or public services. It stands to reason that lacking such enforcement would induce large amounts of illegal immigration.
This isn't really a side effect either. The political economy of federal immigration law has something to benefit both parties. Conservative Republicans disproportionately benefit from cheap(er) labor and democrats/libertarians get to reduce the power of the federal government in ways that they see as politically desirable. There is a reason most immigration laws until the 2000s were overwhelmingly bipartisan.
This doesn't have anything to do with voter suppression at all. Any plan to require or give out ids for voting runs into the issue of how to handle these legal issues. One solution is for the government to only require the id for voting and nothing else at all. In other words, the government will get to have access to personal information but: 1) can not make using the id service convenient(as covered above) and 2) cannot use that information for any other public reason(unless federal law is changed) finally, 3) only the federal government can make such information useful which means you rapidly start approaching a centralized database which most european /western countries do not need to have.
> No one thinks that.
> "Voter ID requirements limit the number of people who are able to cast a ballot."
Ref: https://www.aclu.org/facts-about-voter-suppression
The first page of results for "id laws voter suppression" turned up similar statements from the WaPo, Atlantic, Wired, Vox, and quotes numerous politicians. Your "no one thinks that" is not in line with reality.
That said, the Republican path of establishing voter ID laws is often part of a pattern of "let's make it hard for the poor and working class to get proper ID, and to vote".
Reducing early voting, not making ID cards free, etc. Voting should be a universal right in this country. The government should be putting in maximum effort to assist everyone who wants to vote, to be ready when the time comes, and enable early voting as much as possible.
Just about everyone I know who leans even slightly left here in the US believes that requiring ID to vote is defacto voter suppression.
Also it seems like states are making it easier to get an ID [0]
[0] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/12/16767426/...
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.
They at least offer the alternate forms of ID, but those still eliminate people. A homeless person is probably not going to have any of those documents on hand, but they have every right to vote. There is also the inherent problem of singling out people without ID for further scrutiny. This added "security" has notoriously been used as a method to suppress the vote over the course of US history. The simple act of requiring someone to state on a government form they can't "reasonably" obtain an ID is going to scare some people off from voting. What is "reasonable"? Am I going to be charged with voter fraud if I simply didn't want to spend the money on an ID? Will I end up in jail for voting? There is a chilling effect here.
[1] - https://www.dps.texas.gov/driverlicense/electionid.htm
The Texas Election Identification Certificate ID is free.
>and all the federal IDs require money.
Wrong. Military and veteran IDs are federal IDs that are free of charge.
>They at least offer the alternate forms of ID, but those still eliminate people. A homeless person is probably not going to have any of those documents on hand, but they have every right to vote.
They wouldn't have been allowed to vote under the previous system either. This is a red herring.
> There is also the inherent problem of singling out people without ID for further scrutiny. This added "security" has notoriously been used as a method to suppress the vote over the course of US history.
There is no "further scrutiny". You either have the documentation that proves your eligibility to vote in your locality, or you don't. Studies showed that Voter ID laws have little to no effect on turn out.
> The simple act of requiring someone to state on a government form they can't "reasonably" obtain an ID is going to scare some people off from voting.
No doubt, but in Texas and in many other states, they are reasonably attainable, and have no fees. Somewhat of a straw man here. Again, studies showed that Voter ID laws have little to no effect on turn out.
> What is "reasonable"? Am I going to be charged with voter fraud if I simply didn't want to spend the money on an ID?
No, you just won't be allowed to vote. You won't be charged with any crime. Also, you don't spend money on fees, the above ID mentioned is free.
> Will I end up in jail for voting? There is a chilling effect here.
This is all conjecture. There is no chilling effect on requiring a free voter ID according to the studies.
Which itself requires ID to acquire defeating its purpose as an alternative ID for people without ID.
>Wrong. Military and veteran IDs are federal IDs that are free of charge.
I was referring to the IDs available to the general public. A military ID being free is irrelevant to a huge majority of the US.
>They wouldn't have been allowed to vote under the previous system either. This is a red herring.
How is that a red herring? A flaw existing in both the old and new system doesn't mean it isn't a flaw. Do you think disenfranchising homeless people is acceptable?
>There is no "further scrutiny". You either have the documentation that proves your eligibility to vote in your locality, or you don't. Studies showed that Voter ID laws have little to no effect on turn out.
It takes added time and requires further documentation. The time it takes to vote has been shown to have an impact on voter turnout. Also I don't know what studies you are talking about. Here is one from a nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that says the exact opposite[1].
Your other points all rely on something refuted in the above points.
[1]- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/09/ga...
You need documentation to prove you're eligible to vote in your locality in order to be able to vote in your locality. The is the same logic behind any type of identification/registration, Voter ID or not.
>I was referring to the IDs available to the general public. A military ID being free is irrelevant to a huge majority of the US.
You specifically stated "all the federal IDs require money", which is patently false, QED.
>How is that a red herring? A flaw existing in both the old and new system doesn't mean it isn't a flaw. Do you think disenfranchising homeless people is acceptable?
It is by definition a red herring because being a flaw or not is immaterial to the discussion at hand since it is not specific to Voter ID laws. You asking the question is a textbook logical fallacy.
>It takes added time and requires further documentation. The time it takes to vote has been shown to have an impact on voter turnout.
Sometimes it takes time to leverage your rights. Gun background checks is an example of that, as are voter ID laws. There is no conclusive study that has shown voter ID laws impact turnout.
> Also I don't know what studies you are talking about. Here is one from a nonpartisan Government Accountability Office that says the exact opposite
You linked a piece from a laughably biased news source. It even states opposite of your claim: "That change wasn't entirely due to voter ID, of course, but the GAO report suggests it played a part."
"In a 2014 review by the Government Accountability Office of the academic literature, five studies out of ten found that voter ID laws had no significant effect on overall turnout, four studies found that voter ID laws decreased overall turnout, and one study found that the laws increased overall turnout."
"Studies of the effects of voter ID laws on turnout in the United States have generally found that such laws have little, if any, effect on turnout."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_ID_laws_in_the_United_...
From our Constitution (24th Amendment, Section 1)[1]:
>The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the...
Numerous services exist to provide free rides to polling places including some publicly owned transportation options.
The right to vote does not excuse you committing crimes in order to vote and being naked is generally illegal is most of the US which would probably be what prevents you from voting without clothes.
Imagine a state completely waives their fees for a State ID (usually only $10-20 anyway) in exchange for Voter ID laws. Do you think progressives could support it then? Would you?
It sounds like your criticism is of government (or at least DMV) complexity/ineffectiveness in general, not the ID laws specifically.
This was my first result searching for "us constitution voting" https://www.votefortheconstitution.com/voting---what-does-th...
Constitutional protections for voting are far more limited.
Voting is not defined as a "government service" and voting itself is barely defined at all in the Constitution or any Amendment. The Amendments assert a right to vote but the means, methods, and even timing are left heavily up to the discretion of the Legislative branches (Congress or State).
Therefore, the vast majority of existing election law can be changed as easily as legislators pass any other law versus the complexity+effort+time of a Constitutional Amendment.
Beyond that, I'm still not sure your point. We aren't debating the means, methods, or timing of voting. We are debating who has the right to vote. As far as the Constitution is concerned, that seems to be everyone but felons.
Providing ID or not is quite literally the means and methods aka the process to vote. I haven't referenced "who" in any way, shape, or form.
> As far as the Constitution is concerned, that seems to be everyone but felons.
Again, check your sources. That's not in the US Constitution and is left up to the States. Here's the full text so you can check yourself: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/full...
No, when you require ID anyone without ID is prevented from voting and therefore you are dictating who can vote and not the means or method of voting. This is no different than a poll tax which is also unconstitutional.
>Again, check your sources. That's not in the US Constitution and is left up to the State
My source is the 14th Amendment, Section 2. It specifically calls out a lack of voter protections for people who had any "participation in rebellion, or other crime". A lack of protections does not mean felons don't have the right to vote. It simply means it isn't federally guaranteed.
As for your question, supporting or not supporting voter ID is less about how difficult the IDs are to get, but rather that it is creating a requirement that makes both the act of voting and the preparation for voting much more time intensive. And this is all to solve a problem, voter fraud, that nobody has any evidence occurs at any appreciable volume.
But I'll just say, if a system existed where I could get a photo ID with no fees and no wait times, and I could do it on election day, then I'd be much more willing to support voter ID laws.
My guess would be because an LTC (like a driver license) clearly indicates if you are a state resident whereas a UT student ID does not?
The student IDs can certainly be modified to contain that info, but until they do it makes sense that they aren't a strong enough ID for voting.
And of course, it's a state run university. If the state really cared about making voting accessible to people with valid IDs, they would update the UT IDs to meet whatever requirements they deemed necessary. They've had 6 years. Why haven't they done it? Students actively want the change.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that a Texas Handgun License requires citizenship.
https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/ltc/faqs/index.htm
> 12. Can non-US citizens obtain a License to Carry a Handgun? > Yes. Subject to the requirements of federal firearms law, and if not otherwise ineligible, resident aliens and certain nonimmigrant aliens who are lawfully present in the United States may obtain the license.
Amusing how quickly the requirements grew.
Ref: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/same-d...
[1] https://www.campusvoteproject.org/student-id-as-voter-id
I see that 10 states will accept student ID, but there are restrictions on which IDs. For example, it has to have your signature on the card, etc.
Whenever voter license legislation is proposed, there are no efforts to make sure every eligible voter is able to exercise their right to vote.
> The real question is why voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday
Why is it that voter license proponents are against the idea of giving a free voter ID to every eligible voter on their 18th birthday?
It's frequently brought up in response to voter license legislation, but it is never incorporated into their proposed legislation. Why is that?
A good compromise would be free ID's for everyone, but neither side wants this and would rather keep fighting the id battle, because like most battles, its only purpose is to keep the people divided and easy to manipulate.
With voting license legislation enacted, in order for a citizen to vote, they must have a government-issued license. It can't be just any government-issued license, either, it needs to be one of the specially designated licenses that you need to jump through hoops to get beyond being just a citizen.
For many people, obtaining such a license is both a monetary and time expense that is only necessary to participate in elections. A citizen living in a city might have little reason to have a driver's license, but they'll need one if they want to vote, and they'll need to renew it every few years at their own expense.
A solution to this problem is making sure every citizen receives a voting ID on their 18th birthday. For whatever reason, voting license proponents never seem to want to implement such a program.
> The ugly truth is democrats know that sloppy voting tends to fall their way and republicans know that voter id laws tend to fall their way.
And yet voting fraud is nearly non-existent, and there are numerous examples of courts finding that voting license legislation disenfranchises voters.
If you want to take issue with the methodologies used to determine that, you're free too, but right now what your post amounts to is denial of scientific evidence.
[1] Here are dozens of independent and government studies, and court rulings on voter fraud: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/B...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/02/low-rates-o...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/minuscule-number-of-...
And none of those speak to my point, and the point of many others who study this in detail, is there were over a thousand recorded criminals cases of voter fraud over in recent elections. When you couple that with many elections having no way to audit a vote, then we have a huge problem, because without auditing tools, only the most stupid and egregious incidents of fraud will be caught.
If you agree that a fraudulent election would be catastrophic for our democracy, and that we currently have no tools to audit the integrity of our votes (which we can't without voter ID), then voter ID, free or whatever, is an obvious solution.
I'm betting Belarus wishes they had a way to audit their elections about now.
Again, you insist that the methodology to audit isn't there, yet there are dozens of studies, audits and case law examples that disagree with your opinion.
Again, if you want to disagree with the methodology, you are free to, but please be specific about what you disagree with.
Ok I sort of am lying since vote by mail is pretty much the only system I support and voter ID laws make no sense for that.
It would be a step in the right direction, but the concept of a universal ID requires everyone (well, except outlaws in hiding) to have it - if it's mandatory, then it becomes legally reasonable to require it for receiving all kinds of services as you can answer "How do I do X if I don't have a valid ID?" with "Step 1: Get the ID renewed/replaced/made" and "How do I do X without ever getting an ID" with "Sorry, that won't be possible, not ever getting an ID is not a valid option", like it is currently the case in many other countries.
In essence, if instead of "just" making it easy to have ID even for poor and disenfranchised people you go out of your way to ensure that it's weird for them to not have ID, then ID requirements won't suppress voters.
No, it's not. Many people have difficulty finding the documents that will get them an ID. There are plenty of people working illegal jobs who are trying to figure out how to get a birth certificate, social security card or prove residence. This was even more common when more people were born at home.
I had a hard time getting ID when I was a teenager, and I needed it for migrant agricultural labor (to work on a legal crew doing corn detasseling.) Luckily, I got arrested a week before we were scheduled to leave, and I was able to con the DMV into issuing an ID based on my jail papers (although the clerk at the jail wrote down whatever I told them.)
The reason requiring ID is a problem is because there's no widespread voter fraud, and declaring that you're someone else is very difficult without that person agreeing not to go vote. It's a requirement whose administration cost dwarfs by orders of magnitude any benefit. The intention is to exclude people who have ID problems, not the people who don't believe it's possible that anyone could possibly have ID problems.
Also, just let felons vote. Put voting booths in prisons. If your population is so prisoner-heavy that they make a significant difference in the outcome, your society is broken.
For whatever historical reason, we've entrusted the DMV with validating everyone's identity. The one which is open 9-4 M-F in the best conditions, and has been basically shuttered since Coronavirus.
In some states, you can go to 'third-party offices' which are privately run and offer longer hours, but it's still a several hour endeavour (and then you're paying $30 extra for their services).
Not to mention the groups who fight against using any form of identification at all during voting.
Someone with some sort of identity and address should be able to withdraw your bank account until proven guilty?
I think that's what people are suggesting maybe voting should have.
We certainly could have decently secure elections without ID. Like this: You show up to vote in person, a good photo is taken, and you say who you are. That info is then made public. Political parties and other interested groups can sift through the photos, maybe with an AI, to find any crime.
It's almost perfect. The main trouble is that fraud detection happens after the voting, so a person who doesn't fear prison can do as desired.
There are two possible kinds of voter fraud (both extremely rare), "retail fraud" (i.e. individual voters) and "wholesale fraud" (i.e. bulk fraud). Voter ID laws mostly "fix" a non-existent problem of individual false votes with the express intent of discouraging votes. The real problem you want to fix is "wholesale fraud" which means securing the whole system from voting machines (which should be open-source and paper-audited) to how votes are tallied. Think about it. If you were going to steal votes would you go to all the trouble to forge or hijack individual votes or would you bribe someone to flip a couple of digits at a county office?
Of course, a trustworthy system includes how mail-in votes are tracked and verified but that is a well-understood problem working well for thousands and thousands of absentees, military personnel and whole states full of people who have voted that way regularly for decades.
EDIT: I am being hyperbolic here, but the second reply to my first comment was doing exactly this. We can't have this database because of the Nazis.
Also I'm not asking for a database including every possible detail about a person. I see no reason why something like race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or an number of other traits should be recorded. But a simple database with names, DOB, most recent address, a national id, etc would be extremely helpful.
"Both Mayor Karrer and Bishop Chrysostomos were quickly summoned to appear before the German Commandant, where they were ordered to immediately prepare the list of all the Jewish residents of Zakynthos. ... In a great display of courage and defiance to the powerful occupiers of Greece, the mayor and the bishop handed a simple piece of paper to the Nazi commander. On that scrap of paper, only two names were written: Mayor Loukas Kerrer and Bishop Chrysostomos."
https://greece.greekreporter.com/2020/01/25/the-unimaginable...
"In the book, published in 2001, Black outlined the way in which IBM's technology helped facilitate Nazi genocide through generation and tabulation of punch cards based upon national census data."
I always find it strange how people consider the possibility of certain events far-fetched to the point of irrationality that have already happened.
Would the Holocaust have happened without IBM's participation?
Would the Holocaust have happened if punch cards were banned?
Would the Holocaust have happened if the Nazis didn't have census data?
The answer to those questions is an obvious yes. These logistical obstacles would have been nothing but a mild inconvenience for the Nazi death machine.
The countries of the eu are much closer to the Republican party in terms of nationalism than they'd like to admit.
This guy ran France's database for that when the Nazis invaded. They wanted a list of the Jews out of the database.
The problem with tracking all of us is trusting the next administration
Then again I prefer a more robust solution than hoping someone refuses to run a SELECT query.
Facebook - without checking the specific details - can probably tell the locality and religious position of most of their users; certainly enough to direct the Neue Gestapo to arrest you. But they also have raw address and religion details, which makes it somewhat easier.
Anything beyond that is just market research.