There is a principle, probably applicable in lots of areas, but I know it from arguing about the law. Basically, you don’t want to buy into the way the other guy frames the debate. If you buy into the frame, the rest of the argument is going to be a lot harder. I think the Journal & Courier is buying into a flawed frame in this opinion piece about the Voter ID law.
The writers suggest that the General Assembly can avoid some future litigation and heartache if they simply come up with an identification system for absentee voters, thereby avoiding disparate treatment of in-person voters versus absentee voters:
It would not be surprising, however, if another party filed a new challenge to the voter ID law, claiming he was treated unequally. That’s the way the legal system works.
The General Assembly could end this argument before it begins by creating a law requiring some form of ID from those voting absentee.
The attempt to check voter fraud is laudable, and the voter ID law fulfills that goal at the polls. But absentee ballots are the subject of most allegations of voter fraud.
If lawmakers adopted an identification system for absentee voters, it would add confidence to the election process and answer critics’ legal challenges.
Voter ID was never about preventing fraud. There hasn’t been any evidence that in-person voter impersonation at the polls has been a problem. The fact that absentee voting fraud – where there has been at least some problem – was not addressed suggests that fraud was just a pretext.
The level of the “problem” and the way it was addressed suggests that this was about shaving votes at the margins in an effort to gain an advantage at the polls. Fact is that the population consisting of people who do not vote absentee, would go to the polls in person, but who do not have their paperwork in order are more likely to vote for Democrats. I don’t think this is a significant population, but in politics a small margin can make the difference.
My suspicions will be confirmed next session when there is a luke warm or non-existent effort to confront absentee voting fraud by those who were so passionate about confronting the ravages of in-person voter impersonation at the polls.
So, why wouldn’t a Democrat propose a ID law for absentee? Or is the Indiana legislature all Republican now?
Doug: even if we assume that there has been no voter fraud in the past (which may or not be true), it still seems cynical to hypothecize that this law is designed for partisan reasons, rather than the “pure” motives that have been stated. I don’t doubt that some legislators voted for this law because of the impure reasons, but I hopefully believe the majority voted it for the “right” ones.
Can we reasonably impute impure motives to the Democrats that might have voted against the law, not because they believe the law to be poor policy, but because they believe the law would hurt their reelection chances?
Our legislators typically act reactively rather than proactively. (This is at least certainly true at the federal level). Wouldn’t it be nice if our state legislature was acting proactive rather than reactive for a change?
if their motives were pure and they truly wanted to combat voter fraud, then why did they pass a bill that does nothing to combat the only form of voter fraud that has been proven to exist?
sorry… doesn’t pass the smell test.
While I recognize voter fraud may be more likely in absentee voting, I am not aware of a reasonable method to combat this type of voter fraud. The absence of a solution to that much more complicated problem shouldn’t invalidate this solution.
If you are aware of a suggestion on how to reasonably and cost-effectively combat absentee voter fraud (the new voter id law shouldn’t cost much at all), please share.
to call voter ID a “solution” assumes that some problem existed and needed to be solved. however, there’s no evidence that a problem existed with in-person voter fraud.
so we have a “voter fraud” bill that 1) utterly fails to address the #1 cause of voter fraud, 2) “solves” a voter fraud problem that may not even exist, and is very rare if it does, and 3) has the potential to disenfranchise voters from the other party.
are we to assume that mere incompetence were the cause for 1 and 2, and that 3 was simply dumb luck?
Ugh. This is not rocket science.
To believe that voter fraud has never occurred at the polls seems absurd. If we believe it has occurred, even once, then it is a problem to be solved. Certainly, requiring ID will make any previous occurences of voter fraud harder to replicate. To me, the burden of this law does not seem steep. So, this is a small law designed to make a better system and solve a small problem that has received a large amount of publicity.
Compared to in-person voting, resolving issues of absentee voter fraud is a complicated issue which may not be easily resolved. Let’s recognize as such and not complain that the “low-hanging fruit” was plucked first. BTW, I note that you did not provide any requested solution to the absentee voter fraud in your response comment. Why not if absentee voter fraud should be easily handled.
Regarding (3), you seem to believe this will only affect a single party. Voter ID will probably make it slightly more difficult for a small amount of voters of both parties to vote, not just voters of “the other party” (whatever that is). If you believe otherwise, please provide studies or other facts to backup your assertion.
sorry, i should’ve said disproportionately disenfranchises the other party.
Indiana’s voter ID law was and always has been a partisan law designed to discourage voters on the margins of society who tend to favor Democratic candidates. The real question is not whether the State can require voters to identify. It is whether voters who lack a particular form of ID should be disenfranchised. The failure of two supreme courts to protect this fundamental right from incursions by a transient political majority is sad. Our democracy is being slowly but surely being eroded and our judiciary has ceased to be a bulwark against these incursions. As Justice Boehm so eloquently said, when any one of our citizens is denied this right, we are all damaged.
There is minority of absentee voters who live abroad. Some military and some working as mid-to-longterm expats. Some retirees. Some ballots are mailed in, but others are corralled through US embassies and consular offices, the proof of local residence and individual voter eligibility would be very complicated for these consular offices to handle. In many cases expats use a US Passport as primary identification, other supporting documents [driver permit, birth certificate, bills posted to US residence] may not be available.
More progressive election districts [and yes, Tippecanoe County is one!] have made print-out ballots available on line, saving the cost of mailing paper ballots abroad. After passing a few on-line hurdles…. a ballot can be printed out, voted, signed and delivered to consular offices or mailed in to home.
See: http://www.votefromabroad.org and other such organizations for details.
Voting in this way, the only backstop against fraud would be at the local voter’s registration office?
To my knowledge, a state issued ID is not free. By requiring this for voting, it seems like a defacto poll tax to me.
We have the in-person ID law in Ohio. I don’t know if it tips any elections, but it is routinely paired with flyers in the distressed parts of Cincinnati pointing out that if you owe taxes or parking tickets you will be arrested when you present your ID at the polling location.
I think it is beyond naive to believe that neither party is interested in changing the demographics of the electorate. The Dems don’t seem as evil because they want to be more inclusive. Doesn’t make it any more right.
I am sympathetic to the poll tax concern.
Even though an ID card is rather minor (I believe it is only about $10 in Indiana), I think it would be reasonable for the state to provide free ID Cards to anyone who requests one and does not have a Driver’s License. And if someone gets an ID card and then procures a DL, they should be required to either return the ID card or pay for it (since it is no longer necessary for voting purposes). I expect the effect of doing this would be minimal on state revenues, and this would alleviate poll tax concerns.
Last month Muncie City Councilman Monte Murphy was convicted of three felonies related to absentee voting. If we could clean up the lists of voters who have not voted during the past 4 elections (as was the practice in the past) we could reduce some of the fraud
Muncie City Councilman Monte Murphy was covicted of three felonies related to Absentee Voting
Marc,
From the BMV’s website:
I’d be vastly more inclined to line up behind Democrats on this if they ever challenged the requirements for ID in other areas of life. How is it that proving you are who you say you are is so offensive at the polling place, yet nowhere else?
Funny you think that. Most democrats I know think the government has no business asking people to identify themselves without some strong basis. Republicans always decry big government intervening in their personal lives yet support intrusions on their liberties like the photo ID law and restrictions on reproductive freedoms. Don’t be so quick to pigeonhole people’s views. If you open your mind, you’d discover that many Democrats have views closer to yours than Republicans.
Simple, really. Eliminate absentee voting. Show up at the polls on election day with ID. “Problem” “solved”.
Eliminate politicians while we’re at it, since we know some of them are crooked.
Eliminating absentee voting would effectively disenfranchise me and large numbers of other citizens who cannot afford to take off on a Tuesday (or even be near their polling place) to vote.
Perhaps a more straightforward solution would be to require a thumbprint on each absentee ballot? Works well enough in some other countries.
sounds like the real problem there is why must we hold our elections on a tuesday, and why do the polls close so damn early?
early/satellite voting would mitigate that problem.
I agree, stAllio! Early/satellite voting works very well for me.
Early/satellite voting is a good idea. However, it doesn’t fully resolve the issues of military members (and non-military members) stationed overseas for long periods without the ability to easily return and vote.
The majority of American men do not vote at all. except for President, and then still not even half of Americans vote. Opening up the ballot, and making it even easier to vote, is more important than another voter id law.
Jason – thanks. It seems Ohio has omitted that capability, I would suspect it may have something to do with the fact our BMV registrars are privatized. The cost isn’t significant – $8.50.
I personally think the basis for disparate treatment is a little weak. I have been a poll worker on six elections in Ohio, and the best defense against fraud is the decentralization of the system. Hamilton County, Ohio has 984 precincts. To influence an election you would have to have complicity among many precincts (since each precinct averages a few hundred votes), and that means many corrupt election officials ( where there are at least 2 Dems and 2 R’s in each precinct rotating job functions). This is one of the reasons that computer voting has its detractors – it makes an insurmountable task trivial with the right access.
I don’t have an issue with showing an ID to vote, I just think that it is trying to solve for a problem that doesn’t exist. Even if you don’t have an ID, you need to use a real name in the poll book to get a ballot, and if e real person tries to vote, the jig is up.
The real election fraud discussion should be decentralized vs centralized technologies.
Maybe a voter should be issued a voting ID when you register to vote. That way it doesn’t get involved with all of the collateral issues involved with driver’s licenses or National ID requirements.
@Bill Groth, speaking of pigeonholing people’s views… you think I’m a Republican? Heh.
Doug, that makes too much sense. Again, that seems like a common-sense thing that a Democrat could propose and get some Republicans to join in with, unless you propose that all of them are completely morally bankrupt.