“Voter
ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania,
done.”
--Pennsylvania State Representative Mike Turzai (R)
--Pennsylvania State Representative Mike Turzai (R)
Mike Turzai has been taking a lot of heat for suggesting that
Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law may have more to do with keeping Democrats from
voting than with preventing voter fraud. He didn’t say it quite this way, of
course. However, neither he nor anybody else has ever presented even the
weakest of evidence of voter fraud on a scale that could swing a presidential
election. It is not difficult to draw from his words the conclusion that the primary purpose
of voter ID is voter suppression.
But we knew that. All Mike Turzai did was articulate what pretty much everybody already knows but has the good sense not to say publicly: Democrats benefit more than Republicans when people from the margins of society (i.e. those less likely to have driver's licenses) vote in large numbers. Voter ID laws (which Republicans usually enact) are designed to suppress this vote; motor-voter laws (which Democrats usually enact) are designed to encourage it. Everyone wants to make it easier for their people to vote and harder for the other side. It's, like, Duh!
Both strategies (encouraging voting and discouraging voting) are equally political, but they are not equally problematic. Purely by accident, the Democrats are on the side of the angels. More participation by citizens in elections really is more democratic than less participation. In fact, that is kind of what democracy means.
But what about fraud? Isn’t it legitimate to require that citizens prove that they are, well, citizens? Of course it is, which is why every state requires people to register to vote in advance and to provide evidence of citizenship and residency when they do. People can lie, of course, and even forge documents. (They can even forge picture IDs—trust me on this; I’m a college administrator.) Those who do so are committing voter fraud and should be prosecuted.
How many cases of voter fraud would you imagine that Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett, the governor who signed the Pennsylvania law, prosecuted when he was Attorney General? That would be none. To me, this is one of the most important points in the debate. Voter ID laws have been presented as a solution to the problem of voter fraud. And yet, we already do have a solution to the problem, which is to prosecute those who register and vote fraudulently. Before taking drastic measures to solve a supposed problem, one should at least try the non-drastic measures already available.
But we knew that. All Mike Turzai did was articulate what pretty much everybody already knows but has the good sense not to say publicly: Democrats benefit more than Republicans when people from the margins of society (i.e. those less likely to have driver's licenses) vote in large numbers. Voter ID laws (which Republicans usually enact) are designed to suppress this vote; motor-voter laws (which Democrats usually enact) are designed to encourage it. Everyone wants to make it easier for their people to vote and harder for the other side. It's, like, Duh!
Both strategies (encouraging voting and discouraging voting) are equally political, but they are not equally problematic. Purely by accident, the Democrats are on the side of the angels. More participation by citizens in elections really is more democratic than less participation. In fact, that is kind of what democracy means.
But what about fraud? Isn’t it legitimate to require that citizens prove that they are, well, citizens? Of course it is, which is why every state requires people to register to vote in advance and to provide evidence of citizenship and residency when they do. People can lie, of course, and even forge documents. (They can even forge picture IDs—trust me on this; I’m a college administrator.) Those who do so are committing voter fraud and should be prosecuted.
How many cases of voter fraud would you imagine that Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett, the governor who signed the Pennsylvania law, prosecuted when he was Attorney General? That would be none. To me, this is one of the most important points in the debate. Voter ID laws have been presented as a solution to the problem of voter fraud. And yet, we already do have a solution to the problem, which is to prosecute those who register and vote fraudulently. Before taking drastic measures to solve a supposed problem, one should at least try the non-drastic measures already available.
But
are voter-ID laws really “drastic measures”? Perhaps the most common statement
I have heard in favor of such legislation goes like this: “I have to show my ID
almost everywhere I go. I have to have show my license to drive, to cash a check, to
buy insurance, and even to get opera tickets. Why shouldn’t somebody have to
show an ID to vote?”
This is a very good question, and it has a very good answer—one that gets to the heart of why I object to voter-ID laws. Driving, cashing checks, buying insurance, and going to the opera are not fundamental rights. Voting is. By requiring one to have a state-issued ID in order to exercise a fundamental right, voter-ID laws take us across a fundamental Constitutional threshold that I do not believe we should cross.
As many as 750,000 eligible Pennsylvania voters—citizens all—could be prevented from voting under the current legislation. This is the potential cost of the legislation. Non-citizens, of course, will prevented from voting too. But there is no actual evidence that ineligible voters vote in Pennsylvania or that the current laws against voter fraud are insufficient to control any voter fraud that actually exists. Why would anybody in a free society want to accept the very real cost of suppressing eligible votes in order to solve a problem that does not appear to exist? Such a question is absurd, of course, if suppressing these votes is actually the point.
The most eloquent rebuttal to voter-ID laws that I have heard comes from Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach, who said, "If you have to stop people from voting to win elections, your ideas suck."
Voter-ID laws suck.
This is a very good question, and it has a very good answer—one that gets to the heart of why I object to voter-ID laws. Driving, cashing checks, buying insurance, and going to the opera are not fundamental rights. Voting is. By requiring one to have a state-issued ID in order to exercise a fundamental right, voter-ID laws take us across a fundamental Constitutional threshold that I do not believe we should cross.
As many as 750,000 eligible Pennsylvania voters—citizens all—could be prevented from voting under the current legislation. This is the potential cost of the legislation. Non-citizens, of course, will prevented from voting too. But there is no actual evidence that ineligible voters vote in Pennsylvania or that the current laws against voter fraud are insufficient to control any voter fraud that actually exists. Why would anybody in a free society want to accept the very real cost of suppressing eligible votes in order to solve a problem that does not appear to exist? Such a question is absurd, of course, if suppressing these votes is actually the point.
The most eloquent rebuttal to voter-ID laws that I have heard comes from Pennsylvania State Senator Daylin Leach, who said, "If you have to stop people from voting to win elections, your ideas suck."
Voter-ID laws suck.
