Michael Knows Best: Voter ID's

Note: When I say “Democrats” or “Republicans” I am not referring to people identify with values of these parties, registered members, or even necessarily elected officials. I am referring to primarily to the Party structure itself, meaning Party leaders, campaign staff and Party spokesmen and strategists.

If you look in any dictionary you will find a number of definitions for the word politics. All of which are accurate in the right context. According to Merriam-Webster they are as follows:

1.         a. The art or science of government

b. The art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c. The art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a  government

2.         Political actions, practices, or policies

3.         a.  Political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)

b. Political life especially as a principal activity or profession

c. Political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices

4.         The political opinions or sympathies of a person

5.         a. The total complex of relations between people living in society

b. Relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or

dealt with from a political point of view <office politics> <ethnic politics>

In the context of dealing with the current debate on the requirement of photo identification the best definition of politics to use would be 3a with a little bit of 3c thrown in there.

For those of you unfamiliar with the debate, here is a brief summery. Most (but not all) states require you to present some form of ID when you vote. Some states require the ID to be a photo ID (like a passport or divers license) other states do not need a photo on the ID (so you can use a voter registration card or a Social Security card).

A few states recently passed or are process of trying to pass a law that requires photo ID when you vote. As the conflict has expanded, the Department of Justice has gotten involved and there are a number of court cases pending on the subject.

 So what is all the fuss about? Pro photo ID proponents argue that such measures are needed to prevent voter fraud (i.e. people voting who are not citizens, not registered to vote or (in some States) convictive felons). People opposed to the photo ID say that it places an undue restriction on voting and disproportionately affects poor, elderly and minority voters. Studies show that about 10 percent of the adult population does not have any form of photo ID and that this 10 percent is predominantly poor, elderly and/or a minority. This is because the most common form of government photo ID is a driver’s license and these groups at have a higher percentage of people who do not have a current one because: they cannot afford a car (the poor), are not able to drive (the elderly), or live in densely urban areas and rely on mass transit (many minority groups).

 To make matters even stickier, the political parties have drawn battle lines on the topic. Republicans stanchly support the requirement for voter photo ID and the Democrats vehemently oppose this.

 So the accusations start to fly. Democrats accuse the Republicans of trying to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, and this is all part of their plan to build white supremacist plutocracy on the backs of the 99 percent. On the other side, the Republicans charge Democrats with trying to steal power by manipulating elections though fraud with their armies of illegal immigrants and former felons. Sadly I am only mildly exaggerating to make my point.

The problem is that the whole debate is rooted in unsubstantiated fears and mutual distrust of the opposition but if one looks at the facts it because clear that the entire debate is actually a huge waste of breath.

On the surface both sides seem to have legitimate concerns. No reasonable person likes the idea of voter fraud and no reasonable person wants to hinder someone’s legal right to vote.

The problem is, neither is happening.

 For all the fear of voter fraud it is more or less a non-existent crime. A report from the Department of Justice noted that from October 2002 to September 2005 showed there were 95 accusations of voter fraud in the US. But out of those 95 only 26 were cases that involved an individual voter and only 8 of those accused were actually found guilty of a crime. To top it off only two were actually cases of people who voted who were ineligible to vote or under a false name. So in three years, nation wide, there were two confirmed cases where requiring photo ID may have prevented fraud.

To put that in perspective 12,996 people were murdered in the US in 2010. So it appears that the average American is much more likely to kill another person than to commit voter fraud (comforting huh?). Additionally, here is a fun fact the majority of voter fraud is not committed by voters. Though only two voters were convicted of voter fraud from 2002 to 2005, eleven Party, Campaign, Government or Election workers were convicted of voter fraud in that same time period. An issue that voter IDs would not fix.

But wait! I am sure that some of you are not convinced. Certainly there is more voter fraud than that (I can feel it in my bones!). We are just not looking hard enough, right? Nope, we did look and we hardly found any. The State of Texas (one of the States pushing for Photo IDs) Attorney General’s Office launched a voter fraud task force in 2002. To date there has been 57 accusations and 26 convictions. That averages to less than three cases of fraud per year. Another fun fact, there were 98 justifiable homicides in Texas in 2010. So if you live in Texas you significantly more likely to have to defend yourself with deadly forces then to have you election rigged by fraudulent voters. (To be fair the violent crime rate in Texas is just not much higher than the national average. It is a fine place to live by all accounts)

To, 26 convictions in 10 years. Consider that one of the closest statewide elections in US history, the Florida Bush-Gore presidential election, was won by 537 votes. It is unlikely that the amount of voter fraud in the country has any discernable effect on election outcomes.

But wait! There is plenty of wrong to spread around here and it is not just the Republicans who are the culprits of ignoring the data. Democrats have labeled this part of the “Republican’s War on Voters” (can we have a political debate in the country without it becoming a war? But I digress). Democrats argue the lack of any substantial evidence of significant voter fraud clearly shows that Republicans are trying to suppress the minority and low-income vote. But if that were so, they found a really stupid way of doing it.

There has been some evidence to show that voter turn out among the minority and low-income votes has gone down after States have passed photo ID laws. But these studies have not shown any significant drop that could not be explained by year-to-year fluctuation in voter turn out (numbers have varied from study to study in some cases it even rose). So correlation is not necessarily causation. Some researchers say that the even if the dip is due to the photo ID laws it is more attributable to a “learning curve” (voters who were unaware of the law change when election day came and did not have time to get a photo ID). But the preceding elections show no discernable long-term dip in minority voter participation, as regular voters were able to acquire photo IDs by the next election cycle. So if this is a plot in is all part of an extremely short term, and extremely ineffective, plan.

So that is the problem in a nutshell. Same old war on new battlefield.  Both sides are wanting to demonize the other in order to swing independent voters and both sides want to appeal to a segment of their voter base. In the case of the Republicans, they are appealing to their older white constituents who have concerns about illegal immigration and conversely, the Democrats want to drum up support among minorities, traditionally a loyal voter base for Democrats.

So I know what you are thinking. Well mister smarty pants, what do you think should be done? First of all I think that this argument almost borders on a non-issue but this is a classic case of political brinkmanship. The Republicans started getting behind this in 2002, and even though the evidence has not shown that there is much of a problem to solve, it remains a popular issue with Republican, Independent and even some Democratic voters. So they press on.  For the Democrats, this is a perfect target for them, they have nothing to lose. If they force the Republicans to back down it makes them look good, and if can’t get them to back down it won’t really hurt them in an election. But it does give them a Cause Célèbre that they can use as ammunition against the Republicans. Sadly a compromise is out of the question because if the Republicans back down they will look weak and if a deal is worked out the Democrats can only claim a minor victory, witch will be soon forgotten and is not nearly as useful as a debate that rages in the headlines for months if not years.

A comprise on the other hand, would not only be simple, it would easy (and popular) to hammer out. Let’s face facts. Even though there is little evidence it would prevent fraud, it is not unreasonable to require a photo ID to vote. It seems silly that I might be ask to produce photo ID to buy two bottles of cough medicine at a time, but not to vote.

But that being said it is not a crime to not to own photo ID and it should not be a bar to voting without giving people a chance to get one. It is also possible that there are unique situation for some voters (mobility issues, work schedules or extreme poverty) that make it difficult for some voters to get to a DMV or other government facility to get a photo ID.

So here is what we do. Remember when we switched form analogue to digital TV? Do you know how long broadcasters where given to make the switch? The law was enacted mandating switch on October 20, 2005 and they were given to June 12, 2009 to compete it. On top of that for months and months the FCC had a campaign informing people of the switch and rebates were sent out so people could buy converter boxes. It is not that hard of a jump to do something similar with voter IDs. I think that most people would agree that voting is more important that TV clarity. All we need is to provide a sufficient transition time, and to prevent a political arguments ensure that the transition time will not until after then next election cycle (Sorry Texas but 9 months before a presidential election is going to raise some eyebrows). I would say that 18 months prior to the election requiring photo ID would be sufficient. Additionally, launch a public service campaign during the 18-month transition period to inform voters of the change and provide a free “Photo Voter IDs” at DMV offices and county court houses. During the transition period, set-up the local polling locations during the intermittent elections, and the election where the change takes place, to provide the Voter Photo IDs.

There, the problem solved. No muss no fuss. Republicans get their Photo ID requirements and the Democrats get reasonable accommodations that allow all voters to make the transition. As I said before, this is not really a vital issue, but if setting it gets the nation’s politicians to move on to more worthwhile issues then putting the issue to rest would have some benefit.

Sources:

www.FEC.gov

www.FCC.gov

www.FBI.gov

www.census.gov

www.nytimes.com

www.Polifact.com

Fearing Fear Itself: Photo Identification Laws, Fear of Fraud, and the Fundamental Right to Vote

       Heller, Joel A.Vanderbilt Law Review 62. 6 (Nov 2009): 1871-1911.

 
Does the Texas Voter ID Law Discriminate Against Blacks, Hispanics?

       Ramirez, Rosa.National Journal (Jul 16, 2012).

Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud have on Voter

       Participation Rates. John R. Lott Jr., Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc (August 21, 2006)