Thread: Yes, an ID for voting

Yes, an ID for voting

11:58 AM EDT on Tuesday, October 10, 2006

You wouldn't think that requiring a photo ID, such as a driver's license, to vote would be a particularly partisan matter. Doesn't everyone want to clamp down on fraud at the polls?

But the argument is indeed political, bitterly so. Recently, the U.S. House passed a government-issued photo ID requirement, 228 to 196, along sharply partisan lines. Most Democrats, fearing that they would lose votes, voted against the requirement, while most Republicans, thinking that their party would benefit, voted for it.

Democrats accuse Republicans of trying to freeze out people who have a hard time getting photo IDs - elderly, non-English-speaking or down-at-the-heels Americans who tend to vote Democratic. By shaving off their votes, Republicans would have a better chance of winning close elections.

Republicans counter that Democrats are hoping to use fraud - notably the votes of millions of illegal immigrants flooding America - to try to counter GOP success in recent elections.

Some libertarians, meanwhile, fear greater government intrusion into citizens' lives if a photo ID is required.

But the bigger issue in a democracy is protecting free and fair elections, and a country governed by citizens and the rule of law. Fraud, in effect, steals votes from honest citizens and makes a mockery of representative democracy.

And aren't foes of the voter ID being a bit disingenuous? After all, you need a driver's license with your picture on it to legally drive.

On the threat of fraud, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, is clear.

``The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters,'' the commission noted. ``Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings or cash a check. Voting is equally important.''

It seems reasonable: It is much harder to vote illegally using someone else's name, or claiming non-existent citizenship, if a government-issued photo ID is required. And, given the importance of elections, it is not too much to ask citizens to present IDs if they wish to vote.

It is important, of course, to strive to keep an ID requirement from disenfranchising legal voters, such as shut-ins or others who don't drive; those too disorganized, lazy or timid to go through the process of obtaining such an ID; poor people who don't want to spend the money to get a license; or voters who misplace their IDs.

The legislation passed by the House addresses some of these concerns. It provides federal dollars to reimburse states for providing such IDs free of charge to the poor, and to reach out to communities where such people might live. It would also let voters cast ``provisional ballots,'' giving them up to 48 hours to produce an ID so that the vote can count.

All this may expand the reach of government and possibly cost taxpayers a lot of money. Are honest elections worth it? Absolutely.

Some say there is no need for a photo ID requirement - that there is no evidence of rampant and systematic fraud involving illegal voters. But such evidence is, by its nature, elusive. And by the time there is such hard evidence, it may be too late. Elections could well have been stolen.


http://www.projo.com/opinion/editorials ... 6c4fe.html

It is interesting that the same people who want driver's licenses for illegals have a problem with photo ID for voting purposes. So, they feel that there is no "inconvenience" for someone to obtain a photo ID when it suits their agenda, but it is a terrible inconvenience when it doesn't. Hypocritical.