Kowabunga

NYT vs. WSJ on Voter ID

The Star Tribune is running a series of excerpts from the New York Times and the Wall Street journal on the recent Supreme Court decision concerning Indiana’s recent photo ID requirement for voting. The piece in the Strib does not come down on either side directly, but I think we can guess which side they are on.

From the Strib piece:

NYT: Democracy was the big loser in the Supreme Court on Monday. The court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, which solves a nearly nonexistent problem by putting major barriers between voters — particularly minorities — and the ballot box. Worse, the court set out a standard that clears the way for other states to adopt rules that discourage disadvantaged groups from voting. It is a sad reversal for a court that once saw itself as a champion of voting rights.

Quite frankly, I don’t understand what the big deal is for requiring a photo ID in order to vote. I do see where it is a big deal in NOT requiring a photo ID when voting.

Just think about it: big city precinct, a guy walks in and claims to be John Doe, a registered voter. ID is not required, and he signs his name in the log, gets a ballot, votes, and departs. Some time later, another guy walks in also claiming to be John Doe, a registered voter. The election officials tell him that he can’t vote again as he already voted in the morning. “Wait a minute,” says John Doe, “that’s not possible. I haven’t voted.” The officials point to the signature on the sign in sheet for voting. The real John doe tells them that isn’t his signature, and here is my drivers license proving I am who I say I am. He is denied his franchise because of the lack of a requirement to positively identify a person voting as being who they claim to be. THAT is why a photo ID should be required in all elections.

Granted, this scenario is unlikely to happen in small precincts where there is a high likelihood of one of the polling officials of spotting a poser. But even in small precincts there is a possibility of such a scenario happening. I’ve served as an election judge in my township. I don’t know everyone in the township. And we only have about 300 residents (including minors). Think about what it is like in a big city like Minneapolis, San Francisco, or New York City. Has it happened? Maybe. More than likely there are posers voting in the place of someone who doesn’t regularly vote. Regardless, the risk of voter fraud increases as the size of the voting precinct increases.

It should be noted that the Indiana law allows people to file provisional ballots if they do not have proper ID, and that these ballots will be counted in the regular election if the person validates their ballot by providing an acceptable form of ID within 10 days. So what is the big deal here? Simple: Those who oppose ID requirements simply want to maintain the status quo of making voter fraud easy and accessible as fraud favors Democrats.

It is also those in opposition who make the false claim that such laws are being pushed by Republicans in order “to disenfranchise groups that lean Democratic.” You would think both sides would want fair and honest (fraud-free) elections. Apparently this is something that those who oppose ID requirements want in our electoral process.

Tags:

Star Tribune Supreme Court Voter ID Indiana

Tags: American Politics, Civil Liberties, Indian, Supreme Court, Voter Fraud, Voter ID