Behind The Battles Over Voter ID Laws
http://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2012-08-01/behind-battles-over-voter-id-laws
A wave of states recently passed new laws requiring that citizens provide identification -- sometimes photo ID -- before they are allowed to vote. Advocates say the measures are necessary to combat voter fraud, but others say the new laws are the equivalent of "modern day poll taxes" that have the potential to disenfranchise millions of voters. We talk with civil rights experts about the measures, and with a Virginia lawmaker who has prosecuted voter fraud cases in the commonwealth.
Guests
Abigail Thernstrom
Vice-Chair (R), United States Commission on Civil Rights
Nicole Austin-Hillery
Director, Counsel, D.C. Office, Brennan Center for Justice, New York University
Thomas Garrett
Member, Virginia Senate (R-22nd District)
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
First, the current laws on voting should always allow a person to use their voter registration card as their sole identification card. If a state wants to transition to having face or other biometric, it could add a photo on the voter registration card. Any other form of identity verification would be geared to allow people with multiple homes to vote in multiple jurisdictions. And states that have a DMV database could cross tabulate the voter registration roles and just send out the new cards and even send provisional cards to those that do not have photos on file.
The issue is not whether voter identification is important to voter fraud, but whether it is possible to use laws to affect elections. If voter fraud could change an election that could be dealt easily with other systems, like taking a photo of every voter at the voter booth (thanks to Chris Matthews for this idea.)
The real issue is whether the constitution allows for laws to interfere with the vote. We currently only have one day to vote on a work day mainly during working hours. Some states like Virginia have off off year elections which has the actual effect of having many fewer voters, because local elections usually get less attention. Lots of methods are used to use laws to increase or reduce voting. "Motor voter" vastly increased it.
Fortunately, for democracy, some laws have been struck down that are clearly intended to keep voters from voting. We will see if democracy can stand up under the more recent attempts to keep large segments of us from having a say in our government.
1. Voting is a right not a privilege, so it is not analogous to a driver's license, etc.
2. Until now, the burden of proof fell on the challenger to show someone was not entitled to vote. These laws shift the burden, without any real showing of need, to the voter. In effect, the voter has to prove who they are when they register and then again when they vote.
3. Oddly, those who favor these laws that make voters prove who they are on election day are opposed to instant voter registration.
4. Then there are states such as Florida that won't let you vote if you move and don't change your registration 30 days before your vote. They also attempted, but were stopped by the courts, to prevent groups such as the league of women voters from having registration drives.
I'm glad you distinguished way of writing the post. Now you can make it easy for me to understand and implement the concept. Thanks for the post.
Camp America