The Voter ID Debate Part 2

As set out in a previous post here, the local Federalist Society hosted a discussion of the pending North Carolina voter I.D. law which is an attempt to make sure the person in the voting booth is who they say they are.

I attended the sometime testy discussion, as did Barry Smith, a reporter for Carolina Journal Online (CJO), who filed an report of the event, "Voter ID Under Microscope At Raleigh Forum"

Who is in that voting booth?

Is adopting a law requiring photo identification for North Carolinians to vote a common sense solution to voter fraud that has become – unnecessarily – highly politicized?

Or is it an effort that would put an undue burden on North Carolinian's’ right to vote, a burden that would disproportionately affect the poor and minorities?

Both views were put forth Wednesday during a panel discussion on voter ID sponsored by the Raleigh Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society.

Two proponents of voter ID laws – John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky – took the position that such laws protect the integrity of the ballot and do not pose an undue burden on a citizen’s right to vote.

Two opponents of such laws – Bob Hall and Allison Riggs – disagreed, questioning the need for such a law and arguing that it, along with other changes to voting laws, would make voting less accessible.

Von Spakovsky and Fund argued facts, often referring to the situation following Georgia's passage and implementation of a voter ID law (minority participation up in subsequent years) and questioning the assertions of Hall and Riggs that the law would exclude certain classes of people.

As mentioned in the CJO piece, Hall went on a little trip down memory lane back to the bad old days of the 1960's (I think) when the exclusion of black voters at the hands of the majority Democratic Party affiliated local governments was a disgrace. 50 years later- well, Mr. Hall's best argument was that most voting fraud occurs in absentee balloting and that he was unclear on how a voter ID law would change that. That is a very good question.

Ms. Riggs disputed some of the statistics cited by Fund and von Spakovsky and kept arguing that a law that required citizens to have to travel up to 90 miles round trip to the place to get a valid voter ID was unduly burdensome on the poor and etc.

All of which prompted me to wonder why the organizations fighting voter ID so hard are not out there spending money and time to make sure each voter living so far from his or her local elections office is not provided with transportation and assistance to get the documents needed to get a voter ID (like birth certificate, for example).

Mr. Hall suggested at one point some sort of polling are "affidavit" in lieu of voter ID in which a person would swear under oath they are who they say they are. Now, let's see, I come into vote fraudulently in the name of a dead person (for example) - and then, falsely swear that I am that dead person so that I can vote. How on earth are we going to track down who was that person committing the fraud? Seems like a bad idea to me.

Mr. Fund suggested that mandating voter ID was actually doing a "favor" those who currently lack a photo ID since it could open up the world of travel, access to government buildings, bank accounts and government services that require such an ID. I kept wondering how a plaintiff who lacked an ID could get into a federal courthouse for a hearing since all courthouses now seem to require a photo ID (as do most state courthouse, too) which may explain why such plaintiffs are hard to find.

It all continues to point out the difficult balancing act between the state's power to set the rules on voting (there is no federal voting "right")to insure voting integrity (one living person, one vote, one time per election) and insuring that all eligible voters can cast votes.

Ms. Riggs used the term "cost-benefit" during her time in favor of fewer controls (as in "too little fraud to justify this "high cost" effort to mandate IDs") - which was countered by a member of the audience suggesting that the countering of legitimate votes by fraudulent votes was also destructive to the "right to vote."

John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky have a book on voting issues Who's Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk.

The Voter ID Debate

In a couple of days the local Federalist Society is hosting a lunch time panel on "The Impact of Voter ID in North Carolina."

Speakers:

Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow/Manager, Civil Justice Reform Initiative, The Heritage Foundation
Bob Hall, Executive Director, Democracy North Carolina
Allison Riggs, Staff Attorney, Voting Rights, Southern Coalition for Social Justice
John Fund, National Affairs Columnist, National Review

Democracy North Carolina is one of those "impartial" entities that doesn't seem to have a good handle on what either "nonpartisan" or "impartial" means. By way of example, here's a "Voter ID Fact Sheet" that they have on their website:

DNC Why Oppose Photo ID for Voters by

Now, lets just do a little fact check - read the part under the section title "Hidden Costs." Yes, the very first sentence reads:

Even if voters who currently lack ID were given free ID, they still have to pay for the legal documents needed to get ID, such as a birth certificate or social security card. (emphasis added)

Say, just how much did you pay for your Social Security card?

Last time I checked, those things were free.

Gratis.

A gift from the the American people to me and to you.

So, now, here's a question we lawyers always hope to ask of the other side, "Well, now, Mr. DNC, if you got this major fact wrong on your little "fact sheet" why should we trust the rest of your stuff?"

Southern Coalition for Social Justice also opposes Voter ID's,

We strive to link claims for minority representation with claims for fuller participation by all citizens. For example, voter ID requirements hinder effective participation by numerous groups, including the elderly and persons with disabilities.

How exactly do voter ID requirements do that?

I really want to know.

I will be attending this event.

I'll let you know if my questions get answered.

Oh, and that goofy "driver's license" at the top? One of the accepted forms of identification needed to use the UNC - Chapel Hill Health Services Library.

One more thing. Wait until these folks face the direct deposit mandate and need a photo id to start a bank account.

Vote!

Please vote.

 It's the American way.

UPDATE:

 And now the wait.

Pennsylvania Voter Identification Law: Let the Whining Begin!

Simple rule: No photo ID, no voting booth

Here's the headline: "Stringent voter ID law in Pa. could prevent 750,000 from voting." But if you look behind the numbers the headline is misleading. Here's the report:

New data released by Pennsylvania officials suggests that as many as 750,000 voters in the crucial battleground territory could be impacted by a stringent new voter ID law.

The law, passed this May ostensibly to prevent voter fraud, requires all voters in Pennsylvania to show a valid photo ID at the polls.

Among those acceptable forms of photo ID include a state-issued driver's license, a valid U.S. passport, a U.S. military ID, a government-issued employee ID, an ID card from an accredited Pennsylvania higher learning institution, or a photo ID card issued by a Pennsylvania care facility, such as an assisted living residence or personal care home.

According to the survey, 758,939 voters - 9.2 percent - could not be matched in state databases as having Pennsylvania driver's licenses, the most common form of photo ID in the state.

Of those 9.2 percent, about 22 percent - or 167,566 people - are categorized as "inactive" voters, according to the data. A person can be characterized as an "inactive" voter if he or she has not voted in five years and has not responded to a state inquiry about his or her current address. Federal and state law also mandate that an "inactive voter" be kept on the state registration list until he or she fails to vote in two consecutive general elections for federal office following the notification.

"Even though many voters identified in this comparison as not having PennDOT IDs are 'inactive voters', most of whom have not voted since 2007, we will err on the side of caution and include them in this mailing," said Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele in a statement released alongside the study.

Even if voters are classified as "inactive" with 100 percent accuracy, however, that leaves nearly 600,000 "active" voters who lack driver's licenses and may not be able to cast their votes on Election Day.

Or, if I were to write the story with a different slant:

Approximately 600,000 prospective voters in Pennsylvania need to get off their butts and find their way to a government office at which they can be issued a free photo ID capable of meeting the PA voting standards. "If they are too lazy or inept to get this done, it is doubtful that they should be voting in any case," said I.M. Ahack, a voting analyst from the University of Upper Yursnow, who continued, "After all if they can't find time between now and November to get a photo ID it's kind of sign of a lack of interest, don't you think?"

Another 167,566 former voters seem to have disappeared from the state as they haven't voted in PA in over 5 years and also haven't responded to state efforts to see if they are interested in voting. "Some of them may have moved out of state, gone to prison or died," theorized S.T. Atfreq from the voter registration section of the Demopublican party. "If they have died or moved, it'll be harder to get them registered, I suppose. Given that 750,000 total number reported by PennDOT only refers to those "voters" without driver's licenses it is possible that this whole report is a joke, because there are so many other forms of acceptable ID that some or all of these people may have. After all, I think you need some sort of photo ID to do everything in our society, like have a bank account, travel on an airplane, enter a federal building, and the like, so I think these numbers are way off."

The forms of ID allowed under PA law:

Probably the Best Vote Prediction Device Ever

Well?