Posted on 05/15/2014 8:17:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
The logic behind laws requiring voters to provide a government-issued photo identification card is simple and seductive: If you need to show an ID to board a plane, open a bank account, get public aid or do any number of other things, it only makes sense to do the same before casting a ballot.
That was what Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, said in 2011 as he signed a law imposing this new mandate. "There really is no barrier for people," he asserted. "Particularly in a society where people need photo identification for just about everything else, including checking out a book from the library ... it's a reasonable requirement."
Many of the advocates can't imagine anyone functioning in 21st-century America without valid proof of identity. So they are skeptical that requiring it could possibly be an obstacle to voting. They also tend to believe that anyone who lacks something so basic deserves no accommodation.
These attitudes reflect a failure to understand the lives of many Americans. In the suit challenging the Wisconsin law, which recently was overturned by a federal court, a parade of people attested that they lacked the required ID and, in many cases, couldn't easily get it.
One of them was Ruthelle Frank, a former member of the village board of Brokaw. She has never had a driver's license or state ID, and her 1927 birth certificate has a misspelling. To get it fixed, she would have to undertake a legal process that could cost $200.
Another was Mariannis Ginorio, a young Milwaukee woman. She had no driver's license, and Wisconsin doesn't accept birth certificates from her native Puerto Rico issued before 2010. Sam Bulmer, a homeless Air Force veteran, could offer only a federal Veterans Identification Card -- which is not on the list of IDs recognized by the state.
Statewide, the court concluded, 300,000 eligible voters don't have the documents needed for voting. In the normal course of life, people like this don't need them.
Fifteen percent of white adults in Wisconsin, and half of blacks and Hispanics, don't drive. Passport holders are a minority of the population. A lot of people don't need a photo ID to board a plane because they don't fly.
In fact, the Transportation Security Administration doesn't bar anyone who shows up without an ID. In that case, the TSA says, "You'll be able to fly as long as you provide us with some information that will help us determine you are who you say you are."
Seniors can verify their eligibility for Social Security without a photo ID. Food stamps? Federal regulations say "any documents which reasonably establish the applicant's identity must be accepted, and no requirement for a specific document, such as a birth certificate, may be imposed." Libraries will generally accept a utility bill or something similar to issue a card.
Opening a bank account? Larry Dupuis, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation, says he never had to show an ID to open his account, which he did some two decades ago. "It's really a post-9/11 thing," he says, for banks to require one. But many poor people don't have bank accounts.
Those activities, in any event, are not constitutionally guaranteed, which voting is. The government can impose regulations that affect constitutional rights. But it must have a good reason, and the rules can't be an undue burden. States can mandate a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which the Supreme Court says is a modest restriction justified by "the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn."
Under federal law, you may buy a gun from a private seller without an ID. Licensed dealers must see photo identification, despite the Second Amendment. That's not hard to justify because if a person forbidden to own firearms acquires one -- say a convicted felon -- the outcome may be fatal.
If a person forbidden to vote manages to cast a ballot by pretending to be someone else, by contrast, the election result will almost never be affected. Besides, the sort of fraud that an ID would prevent is exceedingly rare. The court in Wisconsin found the requirement would block vastly more legal voters than fraudulent ones.
States have long had procedures that discourage fraud by impersonation without blocking legitimate voters from the polls. The stricter new requirements may sound reasonable, but they're not reasonable for everyone -- or reasonable for democracy.
States that require voter ID offer them free at the DMV for those that can’t afford one.
The utility bill BS don’t fly either, because you have to have a valid picture ID to have the utilities turned on!
Still can’t get an ID? No problem, everyone has finger prints, no photo ID requires you finger print on the ballot.
Yup, likely a Libtardian just like Runt Paul.
Their idea of every vote should count is to vote often they no longer try to hide their dishonesty they know the public have been bummed down and they can sell anything to them with the help of the MSM.
They are the masters of fraud.
Mr Chapman deserves a hearing. He came with an opinion and with reasons to support his opinions. I don’t agree with him, but it’s so much more refreshing than the argument we usually hear.....”RACIST!” And you know that is the sum total of everything we normally get.
I disagree with Chapman.
First, I don’t think getting a picture ID is a burden at all. Despite the few examples he’s given of those who can’t get a Puerto Rican certificate or have to change a name on a birth certificate because of bad spelling, those exceptions should not drive a good rule. Besides, there’s no need to require a birth certificate to prove citizenship. Some reasonable evidence should be all that’s required to get a picture ID....bills, witnesses, relatives, etc. It’s just not hard to do. And the payoff — secure elections — is important.
Second, his point that a few cases of fraud can’t determine an election simply isn’t so. We had one woman in Cincy convicted for voting 6 times last presidential election. With 88 counties, that’s 568 votes if it were to happen in every other county. And Florida was determined by that number of votes in the famous hanging chad election.
All of his arguments about what people DON’T DO are simply a subset of how hard it is to get verify your identity for purposes of a picture ID.
ALL OF THESE are mitigated by the ID being free, by transportation being provided, and by other means of identifying oneself. So far as a homeless man having difficulty, even that man has a name and a story that can be checked.
Picture ID is not a burden of any consequence at all. The courts are wrong.
Finally, I think he’s mistaken about the right to vote. It can be abridged, although the list of constitutional reasons are limited. For example, one must be a US citizen, states can impose registration requirements, certain criminals can be prevented, and there are even residency requirements. Therefore, since there are registration requirement, then it only follows that one be able to demonstrate some bit of truth regarding one’s meeting those requirements.
You may choose to not live as an adult in modern America but that is YOUR choice and should have no impact on our election laws.
I am pretty doubtful of that number. They may not have licenses but I suspect they manage to drive without them.
given anyone who is poor and doesn’t have ID can get a state ID card for free, there is no burden. it was written in the law so that it wouldn’t be a burden.
Now how many in your state have valid drivers licenses and how many that don’t do drive anyway?
Re: “Obtaining a Wisconsin state ID card for the purposes of voting is FREE!”
They have the same procedure in South Carolina.
The current tempest in a teapot, locally, is that NC found something like 35,000 duplicate registrations in other states. Of them, 780-odd (IIRC) had voted twice.
Libs say "Well, there are some discrepancies, it's not really that many, blah blah, etc etc". One "discrepancy" is too many, IMO, because it cancels out my vote. BUT - more to the point....
I think that it shows how rampant abuse at the polls, by the pollworkers, really is. Do I think that "Jane Doe" voted in NC, then drove all the way to Minnesota to cast another ballot because they knew the states wouldn't talk to each other on the topic and she could likely get away with it? Probably not.
But I DO think that pollworkers would cast "Jane Doe's" ballot FOR her, along with a few hundred other non-voting people, after the polls close of course, and only if their candidate needed to get a little bump over the finish line. That's the real problem, and the elephant in the room that no one is talking about.
The problem for the left is that by being required to have a voter ID card, that they are forced to vote honestly. It doesn’t matter that the State ID is free of charge
I felt the same way when I read this.
Voting should be one of the most important things that someone does, and they want to reduce it to a utilitarian role similar to using the toilet.
In their eyes, you shouldn’t even have to leave your recliner to vote.
I say crap to this article.
A lot. According to this study by AAA 1 in 5 fatal crashes involves someone without a valid license. I assume that this is higher than the rate of drivers as a whole but I really don't know.
Most of the state laws I have read all include provisions for free photo ids. I would be shocked, if Wisconsin doesn’t also.
I certainly had to when I went to visit my congressman. Indeed, I was glad to be asked for it.
I think it’s necessary, yes, but it’s also necessary to make sure the person voting is eligible to vote.
And indelible purple ink for all voter.
If you do not possess the mental acuity to acquire a photo ID, you absolutely should NOT be voting.
I guess that makes me a racist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.