Voter ID: Deterring Voter Fraud or Legal Voters?
|
|
Over the past six years, it has been a goal of the Bush administration to crack down on voter fraud and the intentional corruption of the election process by voters. The only problem is that voter fraud, on a broad corruption scale, is virtually nonexistent. According to a Bernard College study, between 2002 and 2005 only 24 people have been convicted of voter fraud. This is a negligible amount compared to the overall voting population. Thus, contrary to some partisan conservative viewpoints, voter fraud has little to no effect on elections. Then why pursue Voter ID laws when there is seemingly so little evidence of voter fraud?
Voter ID is sought on a partisan basis as a way to suppress the poor, elderly, student, and minority vote. The supposed goal of Voter ID is to protect against voter fraud. However, in reality, it will deter more voters than it protects by mandating that voters present a government issued ID at the polls. Voter ID will ultimately disenfranchise those who are eligible to vote but do not have the proper identification. In Milwaukee County alone, 47% of African American adults do not have a valid drivers license. Statewide, 23% of Wisconsinites 65 years of age and older do not have a Wisconsin drivers license, according to a University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee 2005 study. This is a considerable portion of the population that would not have the opportunity to vote if Voter ID was enacted in Wisconsin, as it has been in many other states.
The purpose of Voter ID, therefore, is not to fix the supposed “corruption” surrounding elections but to really disenfranchise legal voters that do not have the proper identification. The focus of the next election should not be to deter minority, poor, elderly, and student voters but to encourage everyone who is legal to vote to do so without hindrance at the polls.
Indiana recently passed what were called "strict" voter ID laws, yet the number of voters shot way up--especially in the democratic primaries. Since this was the first major election since the law was passed, one would expect widespread problems with the new system. Statistics just don't suggest there were any.
Furthermore, we should all be alarmed at the number of people without drivers licenses considering how important this form of ID is. I get asked for ID every time I go to the bank, to buy beer, to rent a movie, to buy medicines. Without a valid ID--such as the driver's--how can one function as a first class citizen in today's society. If people were to express concern for these citizens without valid ID at any other time, I might find the argument more convincing.
People who oppose voter ID laws begin from a noble premise: that if even one person is prevented from casting a vote it is a travesty. While this is true it ignores some equally important truths as well. First is that one fraudulent vote undermines confidence in our political system because people rightly assume that for every one caught there are many more which are not caught. Next, while people rightly argue that voting is a sacred right, this is not to say that we as citizens don't have responsibilities here too. Voting is a responsibility. Protecting the integrity of the system is a responsibility. Proving that one is a registered and legal voter is likewise a responsibility. I'm reminded all the time that people died to give us the right to vote--don't we need to take even the smallest steps, as citizens, to take the process seriously? People who will not demonstrate enough iniative to get their butts down to DMV or wherever to get an ID demonstrate the small regard they have for the sacrafices made by those who died that we might vote.
Considering the variety of arguments on both sides, I believe it is possible to have a system which requires photo ID and provides ways for people without these IDs to acquire them easily. We could, for example, send mobile units to underserved areas and senior centers to create IDs on the spot. This seems to be something we should do anyway considering that we want only one class of citizen and without valid photo ID, one cannot function as a first class citizen.
Or will you only become concerned with the problem when you suspect that republicans are doing it?