Strict ID Laws Don’t Stop Voters: Evidence from a U.S. Nationwide Panel

U.S. states increasingly require identification to vote – an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement. Using a difference-in-differences design on a 1.3-billion-observations panel, we find the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. These results hold through a large number of specifications and cannot be attributed to mobilization against the laws, measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement. ID requirements have no effect on fraud either – actual or perceived. Overall, our results suggest that efforts to reform voter ID laws may not have much impact on elections.

By Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons.  Rooftops, shout, mood affiliation, etc.


NOW, let's just abolish voting altogether and concede the day-to-day operations of our dismal democracy to all the angels and cherubs who manage our lying and spying Tech Establishment so wonderfully well!

Their algorithms will straighten out all of our political choices for us!

How wonderful to be freed of ALL civic responsibility.

I cannot remember ever before seeing the word "ostensive". At my age that sort of thing doesn't happen often.

Maybe those blokes play Scrabble?

It is a fusiuon of offensive and ostensible, one might assume.

Rooftops, shout, mood affiliation, etc.

Ostensive is a real word, but has been incorrectly used here. It's to explain something by direct demonstration. For example, if you wrote the word "red" in red font to explain the meaning of red, you've given an ostensive explanation of the word red.

actually we are on strike this week
anybody wanna go see John Prine?

I am pro representational democracy but my "proness" does not have an elasticity of supply of 1. I don't think children should vote. I don't think voting matters as much as the average person thinks voting matters.

is that james taylor?

what the heck is james taylor doing here?

It is indeed real, and used. And, in this case it IS used correctly although others have said otherwise. From the American Heritage Dictionary: adj.
Seeming or professed; ostensible. From the Wordnet Dictionary: Adj. 1. ostensive - manifestly demonstrative
2. ostensive - represented or appearing as such; pretended; "His ostensible purpose was charity, his real goal popularity"
Synonyms: ostensible
Merriam-Webster and Oxford go something like this:

Definition of ostensive

1 : ostensible sense 2
2 : of, relating to, or constituting definition by exemplifying the thing or quality being defined

'an ostensive attempt to deter fraud that prompts complaints of selective disenfranchisement'

Not in Alabama, no way - 'In 2011, the Alabama legislature passed a voter ID law requiring voters to bring an approved form of photo identification — such as a state-issued driver's license — to the polls. The law went into effect in 2014, and in 2015 state authorities made a surprising announcement: They'd be shuttering 31 of the roughly 75 driver's license offices in the state, ostensibly due to budgetary problems.

As it turned out, many of the offices were located in majority-black counties, leading to widespread public outcry and criticism from civil rights groups.'

Of course, the policy was later reversed.

Interestingly, the reason for this action is not hard for a public choice economist to puzzle out - 'Governor Robert Bentley's former top advisor and secret paramour Rebekah Mason led a politically-motivated effort in 2015 to close 31 driver's license offices in mostly black counties, a move that embarrassed the state and was later reversed. ...
Mason's role was highlighted in a 131-page report released Friday by the investigator leading impeachment efforts against Gov. Bentley, a report largely focused on the relationship between Mason and Bentley.

According to that report, which was compiled by lead investigator Jack Sharman, it was Mason who "proposed closing multiple driver's license offices throughout the State" and asked the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency to "put together a plan."

According to Sharman's report, former ALEA head Spencer Collier understood Mason's intentions were to have the plan "rolled out in a way that had limited impact on Government Bentley's political allies."

Collier, according to the report, claims he then reported the closure plan to then-Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange's office because he was concerned about a Voting Rights Act violation.'

Rooftops, shout, mood affiliation - politicians will act in their own interest, and use any excuse to gain an advantage.

Why a public chpoice economist would find this surprising is surprising.

Do the Germans require a photo ID to vote? Because that would clearly be racist if they did.

By all means, let's have photo ID to vote but any state that opts for it must use Germany's model of issuing the photo IDs.

You want to make having and carrying photo ID's compulsory for everyone over 16? And you want to raise the cost of the ID cards to $25? And include the place of birth on the cards?

Raise the cost of ID cards to $25? Did you get that limited edition version of Windows ME that has the 'beam comments to blogs 25 years into the future' app on it?

More seriously if you think everyone having a photo ID is a good idea then go ahead and push it. But then it should be a policy where everyone has a photo ID. Aren't you a little suspect of a policy that says you have to jump through a lot of hoops if you want a photo ID to vote but otherwise the system will be very happy if you never bother to get a photo ID? Either the photo ID is a valuable tool to detect and prevent a lot of fraud or it isn't.

You already have to have a photo ID to enter Federal buildings, fly on a plane, drive a vehicle, buy alcohol or cigarettes. So requiring a photo ID to vote would seem to be a logical position.

But then illegal aliens wouldn't be able to vote (for a Democrat) and that would be very mean and not nice.

No you don't need a photo ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes. Enter a Federal building? Aside from the post office I've never entered a Federal building in my life and I wasn't asked for a photo ID.

"No you don't need a photo ID to buy alcohol or cigarettes. "

LOL, sure Boonton, you are certainly winning the point with this absurd statement.

Yeah that's a big WTF? statement.

This centrist sees no problem with a photo ID requirement to vote. However, many states get tricky with voter suppression by other means. Some only accept a driver's license for example, even from the elderly who may not drive or a student who may not either. If photo ID is required (and why shouldn't it be) then that requirement needs to be broadly interpreted.

"Some only accept a driver's license for example"

Please provide a link backing that claim with an example of a state with that requirement, because I'm essentially certain that it is not correct.
States issue photo ID's other than DL's for a host of practical reasons, as others point out above. My understanding is that there is some variation on whether or not a fee is charged for those ID's, but they are available in every state and are valid identification for voting.

"Some only accept a driver's license for example" I'd like to see an example of that.

"LOL, sure Boonton, you are certainly winning the point with this absurd statement."

Statements like this indicate how many commentators here must be kids living in mom's basement.

After you've grown up, you will be carded to buy alcohol and cigarettes less and less often and then never. If you are a kid who thinks he can't get alcohol and cigarettes because of photo ID's, your one of the dim ones.

“...your one of the dim ones.”

The internet, ladies and gentlemen.

I doubt any one of us is less than 30.

It’s still irrelevant. Your shtick is that it’s oppressive for voters to be asked to show photo ID. But not to buy alcohol, or tobacco, or enter a building, or go to work, or start a job, or open a bank account, or...or...

It’s special pleading.

'Do the Germans require a photo ID to vote? '

Not really, as noted by wikipedia - 'Germany uses a community-based resident registration system. Everyone eligible to vote receives a personal polling notification by mail, some weeks before the election. The notification indicates the voter's precinct polling station. Voters must present their polling notification and if asked a piece of photo ID (identity card (compulsory in Germany), passport, form of identification). As a rule identification is not required other than by the polling notification.' And of course, no ID is required for a mail in ballot.

What that would do with racism escapes me, however. And all German citizens have a piece of ID, and are automatically entitled to vote - they find the idea of American citizens not being able to automatically vote bizarre, to be honest.

I have argued the "leftist" policy needs to be the demand for the socialist total government takeover of all identity verification by a mandatory biometric ID which is tied to online verification, with voter registration completely eliminated with automatic notification to every citizen or resident of all elections they are allowed to vote in.

Associated with every mandated ID is the much more important online electronic record with residency information, and the biometrics, which is both used to verify a physical ID, but will also used to verify any virtual online transaction.

Thus not only is voter fraud impossible, but also voter suppression impossible.

My guess is conservatives and the GOP will be split on this, with extreme opposition by many in the GOP.

Especially is a future Obama laid out the case for progressive, pragmatic, implementation as he did in Audacity of Hope for the bills Nancy Pelosi got passed in the House in the first half of 2009.

Actual substantial bills presented by Speaker Pelosi would result in near total GOP opposition to mandatory verifiable biometic national IDs that work IRL as well as virtually.

How could Trump defend hiring illegals to build and maintain his golf courses? How could the GOP select voters? How could they blame voter fraud for their losses.

And if passed, the GOP would head to the Supreme Court to get biometric IDs declared unconstitutional.

And a photo is biometric. Like finger prints, retina, DNA, dental x-rays, height, weight, birth date (age), origin

Politically, advocating what is Germany identity law with bills to move toward it in Congress would be great politics to divide the GOP internally and from voters.

Of course, maybe, using another nation would be better to make Bernie a loud advocate, as critical to implementing European socialism.

Once photo IDs as associaated with European socialism, and thu Hitler/Nazi which had "socialist" in the name (National Socialist German Workers' Party), how could Trump not call mandated photo IDs not only socialism, but part of a Muslim plan to round up Christians to be gassed.

"Voters must present their polling notification and if asked a piece of photo ID
And all German citizens have a piece of ID, and are automatically entitled to vote - they find the idea of American citizens not being able to automatically vote bizarre, to be honest."

So, if a German refuses to show his ID at the voting booth, does he still get to vote?

Interesting question to which I cannot answer, being an American citizen who has never voted in Germany. The process seems to be pretty much the same in the U.S. in a basic sense - if there is a reasonable question about identity, the poll worker will check further.

My understanding from reading German text is that basically, the voter card sent to all German citizens before an election is generally sufficient - and the way to prevent multiple voting, as the card can be considered your 'ticket,' which is then kept. Nobody I know of has been checked, though pretty much everyone brings their ID - much like all how all Americans who drive to vote have their driver's licence with them.

However, if someone looks like they are twelve years old, they will be likely be asked for ID.

As for 'refusing' to show ID, why would anyone do that? The only people likely to 'refuse' are exactly those who should not be voting, correct?

"As for 'refusing' to show ID, why would anyone do that? The only people likely to 'refuse' are exactly those who should not be voting, correct?"

Which is the point behind requiring a photo ID to vote in a US election of course.

Surprisingly, if you make it hard for people to drive, they get more pissed off than if you make it difficult for them to vote.

True, but to drive you probably have enough resources to have access to a car and you probably have enough resources to lose a day jumping through the hoops at your state's DMV. You may grumble but it will be over and then it will likely be years before you have to go through it again. Ohhh and, of course, bet that when a state closes half of it's DMV offices I suspect the odds that the office closest to you being impacted is not 50-50.

The idea, of course, is to set the price high to filter out the person seeking the ID for voting only. That, of course, has nothing to do with voter fraud and everything to do with politicians choosing their voters rather than the other way around.

Just to be clear anyone who really cared about fraud would want everyone to have a photo ID and would especially want to push photo ID's on people who are marginally less on the grid than middle and upper class people (i.e. those without cars or traditional banking/financial needs).

How do people get around without a photo ID? You need one to get a job, open a bank account, drive, enroll in school...

I mean it’s clearly a ploy to reduce turnout, but the entire thing just seems stupid.

Dems donate billions to political causes, they can’t do a “get your ID drive with buses etc?” That said, make a non drivers license photo ID free.

Then let’s agree to never talk about it again.

How do you get around without a photo ID?
You haven't actually associated much with the 'lower class' have you? Anywhere from 5-20% of households are unbanked or underbanked. There's a lot of work for cash out there, more than you would think. You can sign a check over to someone in your family who has a bank account. Children enroll in school, they don't have photo ID's. Maybe you're thinking of college. Nice. Check cashing outlets will work with people on fixed incomes to set them up on direct deposits and so on.

There was a time when almost no one had a photo ID. We never became a society where everyone had one. Not everyone has a smart phone, or even a cell phone for that matter, but to you it's nearly impossible to imagine anyone who lives without one unless they are some eccentric super small group like the Amish.

"Dems donate billions to political causes, they can’t do a “get your ID drive with buses etc?” That said, make a non drivers license photo ID free."

They do and the GOP tries to f'k around with that too

So you’re saying they’re guilty of tax fraud? I’m not convinced that’s a winning argument.

There's a lot of work for cash out there, more than you would think.

I hear the drug trade is largely cash, along with many other 'grey market' employment opportunities.

"So you’re saying they’re guilty of tax fraud?"

You're guilty when you are charged and convicted in a court of law and most tax fraud is done by people with photo IDs.


But your whole point is that the reason they don’t need a photo ID is because they’re violating tax law. And because they’re violating tax law they shouldn’t need an ID to vote.

Which is not a winning argument.

Again the entire thing is ridiculous, just pass a law saying photo ID is free, or start a nonprofit to get people IDs and lets move on to actual things.

+1, look at all the pixels spilled on this one, when it's so trivially easy to fix. I guess that's typical of the narcissism of small differences. Also just another forum for partisans to throw poo at each other.

1. Working for cash doesn't violate tax law. Every mechanic I've known always has side work.

2. People on fixed incomes often aren't even dealing with checks or serious work income anyway.

3. You're not getting it. The point is not to get people to have photo ID's, it's to try to surgically stop people from voting by raising the cost of voting. Free photo ID's with carrots and sticks to get everyone onboard may very well help stop all types of fraud, that's not what is being advocated by Republicans because fraud is not really their concern.

You’re playing the anonymous game of getting farther and farther away from the actual point.

To you this is a partisan battle, with the lines drawn and no quarter to be given. It’s emotional and wrapped in the status games of your ingroup versus the outgroup. This should be a giant red flag that your brain is shutting down rational thought and putting the rationalization machine into overdrive.

To the extent there’s an actual problem with getting would-be voters IDs, solve it. I seriously doubt illegals are lining up to vote Warren 2020. But asking for photo ID is such a trivially low bar in 2019 that it’s idiotic to argue against. Shit, I would donate a few bucks to getting hard pressed voters photo IDs. I would even support a federal law making photo IDs free to low income folks.

I mean good god, illegal immigrants can get photo IDs anyways, so even in Alex Jones’ wildest dreams it wouldn’t affect anything.

I got my Maryland license by turning in a Florida license at a MVA in Baltimore. Got in line before they opened, and I was out the door in twenty minutes after they opened.
Even when I titled and plated a new car last year the process took somewhat less than two hours.
I have never spent "all day" or even half a day at any such office for any purpose.

. Ohhh and, of course, bet that when a state closes half of it's DMV offices I suspect the odds that the office closest to you being impacted is not 50-50.

My entire point is that when the state attempts to close half the DMV offices it affects a whole bunch of people who need driver's licenses, which is what makes it impossible to close half the DMV offices.
Thus the ability to use photo ID requirements to reduce voter turnout is limited by the fact that it's very hard to make it difficult to get a driver's license without pissing off a LOT more people than just the ones you are trying to prevent from voting.
It is a self-limiting problem if at all. Like attempting to starve the poor by closing all the grocery stores. People other than poor people use grocery stores.

'it affects a whole bunch of people who need driver's licenses'

I'm guessing you really don't have a lot of experience with how the south works, traditionally. The article makes it obvious which 50% were closed

You might even be amazed to discover, ever so coincidentally of course, how that works with polling stations too. 'Four years after Daphne elected its first ever black mayor, the fast-growing bayside city in south Alabama is facing scrutiny over the closure of polling places in neighborhoods with a large population of black voters. .... Daphne is 84 percent white and 11 percent black, according to latest Census data. Only nearby Foley has a more diverse racial make-up in the mostly white Baldwin County.

Daphne, earlier this year, passed a new redistricting plan leading up to a decision to consolidate its seven polling places into two locations - The Daphne Civic Center and Trojan Hall at Daphne High School.

The consolidation shutters three polling places where the city's largest populations of black residents have voted for years.'

As noted above the DMV offices weren't actually closed, because people objected to that plan for the obvious reason that people need driver's licenses.

'As noted above the DMV offices weren't actually closed'

Well, actually, they were, as reported at the end of the article - 'The closures sparked a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which determined that the stoppages disproportionately affected black residents. The DOT determined that ALEA's plans were a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.'

Let us not be too nuanced here - the closures were just the next step following that strict ID law, following a very traditional southern political framework. And the actual reason for the reversal is clearly stated in the article, which is the closures were a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act.

Along with the fact that the plan was designed in a certain way. Let me highlight this part again - 'According to Sharman's report, former ALEA head Spencer Collier understood Mason's intentions were to have the plan "rolled out in a way that had limited impact on Government Bentley's political allies."'

There's actually a Vox article that addresses the issue.

"“These numbers show that there's not really a relationship between minority population and the number of days county license offices are open,” Ingraham wrote. "

"So as concerning as the initial closures were, they don’t seem to be having a racially disproportionate impact today."

We are not talking about 2017, we are talking about what happened in 2015, as extensively documented in this - 'Mason's role was highlighted in a 131-page report released Friday by the investigator leading impeachment efforts against Gov. Bentley, a report largely focused on the relationship between Mason and Bentley.'

That what happened in 2015 was then mixed into a later time period is exactly the point of my first link from the Washingtion Post, by the way, but I realize that most commenters here don't actually bother to read links.

"Rooftops, shout, mood affiliation, etc."

What is that referring to? C'mon Tyler, give us a hint, we don't all read three books a day.

I think you understand fine but I'm still going to use this comment as a jumping off point.

There are many ways to interfere with an election. A sample list: having people not allowed to vote voting; absentee ballot hijinks; interference with a counting process; forging messages on public forums to create social discontent.

Due to cultural reasons, it is assumed that anyone who cares about certain of the above list must belong to one tribe or the other. If you want to put in steps to address security, even just the lightest steps meant to be able to monitor for problems passively, one side will accuse you of being a member of the other side.

It strikes me as a selective accusation, and violates a Cowen rule, that you only engage better arguments, not emotion on "the other side."

The better argument always was that with essentially zero individual voter fraud, strict ID was an unnecessary cost on government and unnecessary burden on voters.

What ever happened to efficiency?

Surely all these people could instead be working on growing the economy, right Tyler?

>The better argument always was that with essentially zero individual voter fraud

That's the BETTER argument? This is an outright lie.

If I gave you a link, would you believe it?
Here is a whole archive. Be creative in your handwaving :-)

It's the normal argument for vote fraud being slight.

"We have carefully NOT looked, and carefully found nothing!"

Anyway, pure efficiency arguments are weak here: you want to be sure your voting system is secure AND is seen to be secure with public confidence. Given voting is fairly cheap, I'd expect serious states to spend well beyond the most "efficient" point.

I am more interested in the McMike Rule here: which states that if the stated premise for a draconian action does not hold up, then you are probably not being offered the actual premise.

"...if the stated premise for a draconian action does not hold up, then you are probably not being offered the actual premise."

Agreed, it's clear that the bar to getting a photo ID is trivial. Thus the premise that it's going to cause voter suppression among eligible voters is not the actual premise.

>The better argument always was that with essentially zero individual voter fraud, strict ID was an unnecessary cost on government and unnecessary burden on voters.

However the intersection of people who care about burden on government and are on the right political "team" to be critical of strict ID is pretty much nothing.

(A burden on voters that also has zero net effect on their behaviour is also really unimpressive to tout.)

No Democrats give much of a shit about burden on government (I mean, come on, as if), while no Republicans who do actually care about that are inclined to be critical of strict ID laws associated with "their" side.

It's not sexy to complain about some marginal low cost government inefficiency, especially when your "side" is in broad effect all about preserving and expanding the size of government. It's better to complain about racism and disenfranchisement and blah blah blah, even if essentially it's a dumper truck full of bullshit.

this is going to hurt your status in the liberal media community ... to regain some cred you need to complain about old white, wealthy men and how they got their chance but messed up the world

As opposed to true libertarians who support ID laws on citizens? How Times change.

no no no, it's an arms length deal between equals: I register with the State and let it regulate me, and in exchange, the State will let me vote. (*)

* voting facilities subject to availability, your name may be dropped from the rolls for no apparent reason, counting of your vote is not guaranteed

Dropping voters from the rolls due to not voting for 8 years seems like an obvious violating of voting rights.

For once I agree with McMike, the courts should intervene.

Cantoni teaches at the Univ. of Bologna, so I'm not sure how he and Pons co-authored this study. As for Pons, he is opposed to voter mobilization efforts, so it's not surprising that he would find they don't achieve much. Indeed, in his 2017 study, Pons and his co-authors found that voter mobilization efforts "decreased trust in electoral institutions" and "negatively affect beliefs about the fairness of the election".

A purer example of an "ad hominem argument" must be very difficult to find, even on the vast world wide web. Thread winner.

bologna, rayward!

Sometimes attempts at oppression backfire. Piss voters off by making it hard to vote in the hopes that they will just stay home and just maybe instead of them shrugging they will jump through the hoops you set up just to vote your ass out.

And then libertarian to celebrate the new burden on society!

If libertarians are counting on this then they should be on record opposing these silly gambits to push voters off of the polls now.

So basically they have no effect at all? They just spend money and create inconvenience? It's the perfect government program!

Voting is a right, not a government program.

That is a silly statement. Do you have a right to vote if you're not a citizen? How about not even a resident? Tax cheat? Net tax consumer? Twelve years old?

No, possibly (citizens who live overseas vote), possibly, yes, no.

Then it isn't a "right." It's a license, with whatever conditions the polity wishes to qualify it.

What do you have a right to vote for? Not much in the U.S., I think. You can't be denied the vote for a variety of reasons, if there is a vote, but I'm not sure what things non-felon adults are legally entitled to vote for. Their congressperson? Anything else?

More seriously here perhaps the GOP isn't quite catching on yet that the old rules no longer really apply post-Trump. The GOP strategy has been, I suspect, to be the Boring Old White People's party. If everything is boring, then make it so you have to fill out 3 different forms at 3 different places to vote and the only people who will bother will be old white people with nothing else to do. Not necessarily racist, just playing to a demographic.

But the underlying premise here is that things are boring. Blacks, younger people, liberals in general will view going to the polls as somewhat unnecessary because, hey, nothing too bad is happening. Trump's antics, however, make it feel like things are critical and at this time Republicans decide to say you can't vote unless you get a photo ID from the office on the opposite side of the state that is open 1:30PM to 2:30 PM on days of the month that are both not Jewish or Christian holidays and are prime numbers. Well now you just demonstrated your're worth the effort to make putting you out of power to be worth that extra bit of attention.

Of course the GOP could actually decide to move beyond their demographic base. Apple did this when they realized one day they should go from computers to music players to phones . More often than not, though, organizations need to die, at least a little bit, before they get the message. The Republican Party is very talented getting the nursing home demographic and those who run it are the very best at doing that. They would rather be captain of a sinking ship then jr. manager on an up and coming one.

unless you get a photo ID from the office on the opposite side of the state that is open 1:30PM to 2:30 PM on days of the month that are both not Jewish or Christian holidays and are prime numbers

If it was that hard to get a photo ID, then everyone who wanted to DRIVE would have revolted decades ago.

It's not like these photo IDs are something whose one special purpose is for voting.

The goal, clearly, is to raise the price in such a way that those who may just want a photo ID for voting will leave the market. When a state closes half it's DMV offices, that does impact everyone but it has less of an impact on those with cars and licenses who can simply drive a bit more to the ones that are opened. It also means those that don't drive will likely face a much higher cost unless the closure list specifically keeps the ones in their community open (what do you think the odds of that are?).

>The goal, clearly... to make voter fraud as easy as possible, while simultaneously yelling that it doesn't exist.

Yet despite the fact that every poll has observers from the Republican party, despite the fact that many states have Republican governors and AGs, despite the fact that back since Bush the Federal gov't has been keen to find cases of voter fraud to prosecute, nothing more than a trivial number of irrelevant cases have been found.

I see, so the goal is to disenfranchise the tiny percentage of the population that doesn't drive or have a job or drink alcohol or do any of the other things that one might need a photo ID for.

Yes, there is historical science! In an advanced democracy, the issue of photo ID is an economic development issue. How can you account for wireless development and low voting rates? How can you account for the fed decreasing interest rates and voter fraud? Photo ID is a Y intercept for economic literacy, which needless to say, is lower in America than Germany, which is saying something if you consider the millions of international students that take jobs, vote, and pay full price.

Your argument is that the people who tend to vote with you are so lazy and disinterested in politics that simply requiring them have a license will cause them to stop voting.

Oh I agree it's not racist per se, if poor blacks voted for the GOP more often, there would be voting machines on every street corner.

And if immigrants voted Republican, that Wall would already be built.

I'm afraid your riff doesn't hold.

I suspect that your implausible conspiracy theory that the Right is only trying to make things seem boring and normal to stop people voting, when actually there should be some kind of insane hysteria and panic, is not going to go down that well in a period of history in which most moderate voters (outside the "overconsumes media" bubble) are worried about the Left actively amping up a kind of insane hysteria and panic...

I've never understood why this was such a big deal to Democrats.
Getting a photo ID may be a pain in the ass for some people, but it's necessary for reasons unrelated to voting for almost all of them anyway. The level of heat directed at this issue makes me more inclined to think that voter fraud is an issue rather than less, and that the party directing the most ire at such laws is the one engaging in it.

I'm a bit slow on the uptake here. When I first heard about the argument over voter ID, I was naive enough to not recognize the political dimension, so I kinda shrugged and thought "yeah, if you want to vote, shouldn't you need to show an ID?' It's a pretty low bar.

It's because of related status-raising or status-lowering questions.

Look at the way Trump loses his shit when someone suggests investigating or auditing the 2016 election. For him, it doesn't matter if we might learn something, it doesn't matter if there are ways to secure future elections. He sees it as a way to delegitimatize his victory -- and, to be fair, many of the people pressing for such things are still in denial and are trying to delegitimatize his victory.

And yet. It is still something worth doing. List what fraud you are concerned about, and put in place systems that will detect it without disenfranchising anyone.

Yeah, now I see all the political jockeying...

To your last point, I'm concerned that people are casting votes that aren't eligible to cast votes, and it seems that requiring people prove they are eligible to vote is an obvious and reasonable way to address this concern, just like people are required to prove who they are for myriad other reasons.

So the issues with this are that some people do not have drivers licenses, and these people tend to be concentrated among the poor. In addition, some people honestly forget their ID and since voting generally needs to happen all at once (*), forgetting that can disenfranchise them.

You can have provisional ballots that get filled out, but provisionals always make me nervous, because all kind of nonsense happens when it comes to deciding if they are proper. (A box of provisional ballots was supposedly found in Florida the day or two after the election in Broward county.) (And even if the election commission comes up with very fair rules and declares them ahead of time and everyone agrees they are fair, that doesn't stop a judge from throwing his weight around and overruling you after the election is over.)

Towards the other end, you let them vote and their vote goes in the box, but they fill out a form saying why they didn't have ID that day, and a statistical sample of those forms are investigated after the fact.

(*) For someone trying to scam an election, a long drawn-out vote gives them chances to pull lots of chicanery.

It's still a very low bar, one that people must clear for all sorts of reasons, not just driving a car.

I am prepared to lay some minimal responsibility like this on people who want to vote. There is no way that forgetting your ID and missing a flight, for example, isn't a bigger deal to basically everyone than voting, but we don't relax the rules for these tough cases. Like Hazel, I find the violent reaction to a simple, obvious idea curious.

And please don't give me the "Oh look at Brian with his fancy air travel and whatnot." If you don't like the airplane analogy, try food stamps.

Seriously, forgetting your ID so you don't get food stamps and you starve to death might actually be a bigger deal to people than whether or not they vote. If it really matters to people, if they take it seriously, they will figure it out. I have this much faith in humanity.

I try to meet people where they say there objections are. I get pushback even against my "let them vote, just audit some things afterwards" idea, though. Again, they want to lower the status of the idea that there is any kind of (left-leaning) voter fraud, the same as Trump wants to lower the status of the idea that there is any kind of (right-learning) voter fraud.

I failed the vision test the last time I went to renew my driver's license. (I needed new glasses.) As the DMV clerk returned my paperwork, she printed out a state photo ID for me. No charge. That's just one of fifty states, but a rather red one. Buried in the details of articles about these fights, there's usually a mention of the free IDs on offer.

put in place systems that will detect it without disenfranchising anyone

It seems to me that requiring voters to show a photo ID is actually a very simple and efficient way to minimize voter fraud with the minimum amount of interference with voter enfranchisement.

Given that everyone is legally able to obtain a photo ID, and most people already have them for important reasons unrelated to voting it's hard to understand why people believe such a requirement amounts to "disenfranchisement" of a significant segment of the population.

Only 60% of the population votes. What percentage of the "disenfranchised" population votes? Are those people not representatives? How come government public schools in Detroit can't get proper you imagine it has anything to do with demographics?

What's your case that government public schools can't get "proper funding"?

The numbers that I find for per pupil spending are ~$13k for Detroit Public Schools Community District (i.e., the school district that covers the city of Detroit) versus ~$10k for the state of Michigan as a whole: . The Detroit school district has much higher per student spending than the rest of the state as a group.

My first sentence is intended to read "government schools *in Detroit*"

Then make getting a photo ID super easy and inexpensive. In fact make a purposeful outreach effort to sign up as many people as possible. Instead you have a two step game clearly at play to making people who don't need photo IDs (don't drive, have limited banking needs, etc.) hard to obtain and then set them as a bar to voting. Clearly the motive is not that people get photo ID's but to have them shrug and sit out election days.

If you think it is about voting fraud then simply measure these programs by actual fraud detected and prevented. Proof of the pudding you know.

The typical tropes. I know many city dwellers with no cars yet they have either licenses, state issued ID, or PASSPORTS.

Yes, did we forget about passports that one can apply for at post offices, no DMV required?

I'm sick of this retarded argument that poor Black people cant get IDs. They ALL have IDs of they want them. Ask for ID for their Schlitz Malt Liquor and they'll show it. Ask for ID when using an EBT and theyll show it. Ask for ID at the casino and theyll show it. They got lots of ID when it is something they want.

But in charity to your reasonable suggestion, I think that if a state requires ID to vote, it should provide such ID free of charge upon request.

Wow, talk about elitist globalist scumbags here. Most of the people I know don't have passports. Most people aren't going to bother getting a passport unless they are interested in international travel. Granted that isn't quite as something reserved for just the rich as it was in the days of the Titanic, it's still not quite as cheap and easy as Star Trek transporters.

And you don't just get a passport at the post office. You get the pictures there and they help 'vet' your application to make sure you did it right. Then you spend over $100 and wait a few weeks to get a passport.

It has nothing to do with being stupid. It would be stupid to jump through all those hoops if you don't have a particular need.

What a narrow focus on the passport issue, while ignoring the rest of the statement.

No, Voter ID laws do not affect those on welfare as you need your ID anyways already.

neither you or willitts has probably ever used an EBT card or purchased malt liquor. You strike me as the type that gets woozy on grape juice. Talk about what you know not what you think you know.

Why would I want them voting? Need reasons, not just muh feelz.

I think you meant to say Colt 45 or Olde English when disparaging poor blacks. Schlitz would be the go-to brand when disparaging working class whites, or possibly urban hipsters (not sure if Schlitz caught on with them like other "retro" marco-lager brands did).

"I'm triggered on other people's behalf" is not a good enough reason.

Schlitz lager was pretty whitebread but their malt liquor was indeed pitched at blacks -- I still sometimes feel moved to sing the classic 70s' TV jingle "Look out for the Bull, Look out for the Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull!!" (with a roomful of hip groovy blacks scattering as a bull blasted through the wall.)

Instead you have a two step game clearly at play to making people who don't need photo IDs (don't drive, have limited banking needs, etc.) hard to obtain and then set them as a bar to voting.

Because this is such a large group of voters. You have to throw in "don't drink" as well because you need to show a photo ID to buy alcohol.
So, in other words, because it's going to make it harder for people who live off the grid and don't have (legal) jobs or bank accounts and also don't drink alcohol to vote.

I dunno, I sort of suspect people who don't have (legal) jobs or bank accounts have a high chance of not being legally eligible to vote anyway, given that they are likely (a) felons, or (b) illegal aliens. Though when you throw in the teetotaler factor it makes me worry about perhaps elderly voters in rural areas.

Of course you could always set up drives to get these people photo IDs. I bet you could set up bus trips from the nursing homes to help them get set up with an ID. And I have no objection to making it super easy to get a photo ID, so why don't you focus on that instead of objecting to the entire concept of requiring photo IDs to vote? Or are you secretly worried that you might actually be benefitting from some illegitimate voting and are terrified that if it stopped your party might lose elections more often?

I'd rather have more teetotalers voting.

I accept some of the arguments against requiring ID, but "people shouldn't have to do any work ahead of time to vote" never fit for me. For one, we already require them to register to vote ahead of time. Is voter registration an undue burden?

Seriously. Why don't we just make it a one-step process and combine getting a photo-ID with the registration process. So now your registration card has a picture on it and that's all you have to show.

Because that would close down one of the topics for the partisans to yell at each other about

'and combine getting a photo-ID with the registration process'

It was popularly called 'motor voter.' And has been law for more than a quarter century. Any guesses to which group of people hated it?

But at least some lonely commenters can now find a way to work the passion of their lives back into a comment thread.

Given that there is ~0 voter fraud, what do you assume? That Republicans drafting the laws can't grasp the data? That they passed these laws emotionally? Or that the political operatives were being political, and hoping they could exclude the sort of impoverished voter they visualized as the competition? And then that Democrats said oh no?

If this paper says there aren't really so many poor no-ID voters, that's good news.

But as I say it also makes the expenditure that much more ridiculous. We have more expense and burdens, and the Republicans didn't even manage to exclude many votes.

It nonetheless is a failure of democracy. Why should people have to fight to overcome efforts to frustrate their voting as opposed to actually fighting for the issues they care about?

Going from memory, but Texas found 58,000 illegals on the voter rolls, Pennsylvania, 11,000, and Minn, where Al Franken won by 300 votes also had a sizeable number.

Funny, "going by memory". That's a very reliable way to keep track of actual facts...esp. for someone who is using a web browser to present his views. By all means let's do social policy by stuff you think you remember someone saying to you on the TV while you were eating potato chips and a bit of dip fell into your belly button and you were debating whether to fish it out with the chip or your finger.

Turns out that Texas number was complete bullsh*t. And don't assume you can just divide down from a bullsh*t number. Untrustworthy sources don't work this way.

I don't imagine we'll be allowed to ever know, now, how many were naturalized, how many have multiple names, or what the breakdown of issues was. I read about one lady who had been undocumented for many years, but had a husband who beat her. This is evidently a special circumstance which greases the wheels toward citizenship. She thus became a citizen despite having flouted the law, and 2 days later was at an event where they were registering voters. Local voter registrars do not ask for proof of citizenship, whatever that would look like, of course, so how seriously she took the "affidavit" on the card would have been entirely up to her, and she might have filled it out even were she not a 2-day-old citizen. The state evidently did not know about her very recent change in citizenship status when they received the registration shortly after, so onto the list she went (and now she is suing - though the matter was resolved immediately - perhaps she is just used to a certain level of excellence in her home country, as regards bureaucratic matters). Another instance I read about involved a couple noncitizens on the list who were added to the voter rolls at the DMV. Did they answer correctly and were misheard, or did they choose in a government setting not to reveal they were not Americans? The article didn't say whether they were legally resident or not.

If these sorts of incidents are beyond the pale, then the media is probably right, we have no further standing attempting even to verify any of this. The integrity of the voting rolls is not our legitimate business.

Your memory is only partially correct. If you go back to Texas, you will find that this has been discredited since it is based on old and incomplete data, and didn't reflect naturalizations.

Going from memory, these numbers were created the lazy way. There are illegals and citizens with the same name. John Martinez is a citizen. John Martinez is an illegal. How could this be? Surely there is only one John Martinez in the state of Texas! It must be fraud!

How do 2000 unprosecuted felonies square with zero voter fraud?

If one postulate that heavily Democrat districts will not prosecute voter fraud that helps Democrats get elected, how can voter fraud be proved if present?

What conclusion should I draw from federal inquiries into voting records being stonewalled by blue districts?

Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections?

Gated study. What is their method? How in a broad study do they do better than a name match? Note that even in a name and address match you might have a large household (2 John Martinez) or a change in status for the same John Martinez.

They used CCES data for people that checked both that they were NOT US citizens and that they DID vote in the General election.

At this point I think we can just feel sorry for you.

•First use of representative sample to measure non-citizen voting in USA.

•Some non-citizens cast votes in U.S. elections despite legal bans.

•Non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican candidates.

• Non-citizen voting likely changed 2008 outcomes including Electoral College votes and the composition of Congress.

•Voter photo-identification rules have limited effect on non-citizen participation.

I'm terribly shocked! {sarcasm}

File under "we knew it all along but now have proof". Which of course is why studies like this are resisted.

I see the logic now. These laws are being introduced by Republicans, and since Republicans are evil masterminds who think of nothing but how they can disenfranchise poor blacks, the intention must be to prevent black people from voting. We don't quite understand how this plan will actually affect voting in any significant way, but because we JUST KNOW that Republicans are evil geniuses it's safer to assume they are up to know good and oppose these laws at all costs!

I hope you are aware that the public comments from Republicans saying straight up with this was their intention.

Well, it is not actually a Republican or Demotratic thing. Roy Moore was a Democrat in 1970, and a Republican today.

The way to make your statement accurate in a southern context is fairly straightforward - 'These laws are being introduced by racists, and since racists are evil masterminds who think of nothing but how they can disenfranchise poor blacks, the intention must be to prevent black people from voting.'

It really isn't all that hard to discover - if Republicans in Alabama were aware that shutting down DMV offices the way they were did not merely give an appearance of violating the Civil Rights Act, they were clearly a violation of the Civil Rights Act. But with the appropriate paperwork designed for CYA purposes, it was done anyways.

There is massive voter fraud. The problem is that when states require no ID at the polls, when they require only your signature attesting you are lawfully entitled to vote, and when absolutely no one in the state checks eligibility, ever, it is not detected.

You tend not to find what you're not looking for, especially when it is made so that you can't possibly find it.

You do realize both parties send poll watchers to almost every polling place? No one has any incentive to challenge voters?

For years in New York a common tactic would be for politicians to knock other politicians off the ballot by challenging their nominating petitions (NY had very exacting petition standards, signatures and names all collected during very specific time periods etc.). A small industry of political consulting specialists check and challenge signatures on petitions.

Yet you think there's no one who cares if 1,000 illegal voters just show up at a ballot place and vote....when many local elections are decided by dozens of votes!

You have simply no idea how things work. In itself that is a forgivable offense. But ilk like you make it habit of not only being unaware but also setting yourself up so that you never become aware.

Does a poll watcher have an audit authority? Can he take a voter aside, and check that he is on the rolls, and matches his ID. And check that the ID is authentic, by accessing state driver's license databases realtime?

I expect the answer to all of these questions is no.

They can challenge that he is on the rolls. Can they conduct their own DMV search in real time? No but they can force a provisional ballot be cast and the party's lawyers will challenge the validity of the vote if there's good cause. If there's a serious pattern of voter fraud, it won't stand for very long. What do you think happened in GA where all the absentee ballots were being taken by the campaign 'consultant' for the GOP candidate?

A real cynic might think that Tyler is saying "look, we satisfied the paranoids at low cost."

But are they satisfied?

Or will they claim a million illegal votes with fake ID?

I am suddenly reminded of Obama's fake birth certificate ..

Ouch, Hillary hit hardest.

The evidence for "massive voter fraud" is about equal to the evidence that I'm the Pope.

What's your evidence for the statement "there are at least a hundred of thousands of homosexuals in Iran", if you believe it is true? Ahmadinejad denied it in his famous talk at Columbia University, citing the absence of evidence for it. He only acknowledge a few dozen deviants that were dutifully punished by the regime.

So what's the evidence for it? It is difficult to go to Iran, meet homosexuals, record them, and came back with 100,000 indubitable testimonies. The evidence is indirect, but sufficient with anyone in good faith. We have observed among countries and cultures a permanence of a phenomenon that a fraction (very conservatively >1%) of the population has homosexual tastes. We simply apply it to Iran.

Same for vote fraud. In many other democratic countries, fraud is taken seriously. There are strict laws requiring often several government-issued ID for voting, and a lot of after-the-fact checking and verification. Yet. as difficulty and risky as it is, fraud happens. The former mayor of Paris, France, Jean Tiberi, was for instance convicted for having organized massive vote of dead people for himself.

So the common-sense conclusion is that this kind of fraud, which in the US is easier, must also exist here too. Of course, you can argue that Americans are different, more honest, than European. Or, as did Ahmadinejad, that Iranians are chaste and pure, not like those degenerate westerners.

The there is no evidence (which we are not looking for) meme can be inverted as well, for example:

There is no evidence that "Nancy Pelosi is not exploiting young virgins for their blood, using transfusions for the known rejuvenating properties!"

There's at least one statistical study that detected voter fraud.

This is as bad as birthers and birth certificates.

"Academics pilloried Richman’s conclusions. Two hundred political scientists signed an open letter criticizing the study, saying it should “not be cited or used in any debate over fraudulent voting.” Harvard’s Stephen Ansolabehere, who administered the CCES, published his own peer-reviewed paper lambasting Richman’s work. Indeed, by the time Trump read Richman’s article onstage in 2016, The Washington Post had already appended a note to the op-ed linking to three rebuttals and a peer-reviewed study debunking the research."

That fits my priors. But in the interest of being rational, can you link the papers?

I assume this is a Lizardman Constant where people don’t take surveys seriously.

It is the link I gave the rat above, at 12:07 pm.

No. I mean an actual link to the data source and analytics. That’s a link to a far leftist organization op-Ed piece by major donors to a political party.

Shit even when we agree, we can’t agree.

I just googled the guy's name.

That link doesn't go to anything but the name of an article. It doesn't even provide an abstract.

You've failed to provide any actual evidence.

Note that high verification standards do not reduce expectations of fraud.

As I say, it is a birther style thing.

Left: "ID registration is meant to discourage and disenfranchise voters!"

Paper says: "Nope. Doesn't happen".

MR commentator: "Why can't the Right grasp the data?"

I am sure you understand what you did there. There is a long history of Rs passing these laws, and then getting caught on open mike saying they were for voter suppression.

Nice that it worked out that way, but it doesn't remove the driving motivation.

'After the election, former Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer told The Palm Beach Post that the explicit goal of the state’s voter-ID law was Democratic suppression. “The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’”'

"There is a long history of Rs passing these laws," No there isn't.
Gerrymandering happens by both sides, but real voter suppression has always been by Democrats. Even that is going back to the 50s and 60s. Recent times, voter fraud. That's why the Dems are so against voter ID.

Nah, that's always been a dumb conspiracy theory proposed by people who don't understand the data. Never was plausible. This kind of study should be embarrassing, if anything, for the people who were dumb enough to think it was, much less promote that theory.

How can it be a conspiracy theory where it is Republicans reveling in their actions?

I am sure both sides push too far and break the law on voter suppression, but darned if Republicans don't just seem to be more happy doing it.

They might have made their deal with the Devil, and recognize themselves as anti-democratic.

Why would this get "shout it from the rooftop status"? A Straussian reading would suggest Tyler thinks disenfranchisement of black voters is fine for democracy. Hey look two can play this game.

Voter ID = black voter disenfranchisement only to those who think blacks are too stupid to figure out how to get an ID. The bigotry of low expectations.

It's pure economics and incentives. It's perfectly reasonable for a black (or poor person) who does not drive and does not particularly need a photo ID for banking or other purposes to conclude it isn't worth the effort to go spend a day or more to try to get one just to vote....esp. if you close the most local offices that may issue one dramatically increasing the cost for someone who doesn't drive or travel much beyond their neighborhood.

Apparently voting "isn't worth the effort" to get an ID for Blacks.

You just can't get over the soft bigotry mentioned above. A poor Black who can take free public transit across town for a basketball game can't and won't take a similarly arduous trip to get ID to vote?

I've watched people in third world countries stand in line twelve hours to vote.

Let's not forget that we have Election Day on Tuesdays so that early Americans could leave their homes on a Monday morning after Sunday services, travel by wagon with the whole family all day long to the county seat, sleep outside wherever they could find, vote on Tuesday morning, and then ride all day back home in time for market day on Wednesday.

The more you try to make voter ID laws sound oppressive, the more you make Blacks sound slovenly and apathetic. That's really pathetic. You're describing them like helpless children. You should be ashamed of yourself.

So when half the DMV officers were closed you will show me scrupious attention was paid to keeping ones near public transit hubs open?

This is nonesense. If Photo IDs stop voter fraud, then they stop a lot of other fraud too. If so you'd esp. want to push photo IDs on people who don't have them.

20% of the population is on food stamps, 23% on medicaid. The poorer population does need to have identification already.

Medicare/Medicaid cards don't have photos on them.

No, but you need ID to get it.

How about a law that restricts voting to people who have a positive tax contribution over the previous four years.

Go for it, consider half the commercials on Fox news are about Social Security and Medicare products. For years I've been spammed by ads for National Review selling the 'secret' to getting larger Social Security checks.

Come to think of it let's pull the trigger on that policy.

The whole logic screams total bullshit:
1. We need photo ID for voting to prevent fraud!
2. But we don't need everyone to have a photo ID. If you don't want to vote don't worry, you don't need to get a photo ID.

So photo ID magically solves fraud when it comes to voting but those without photo ID produce no other type of problematic fraud for society.... No need to mandate photo ID's for everyone, only when it comes to voting is this an issue.

1. Cashing checks
2. Flying
3. Buying alcohol
4. Buying cigarettes
5. Gambling
6. Using a credit card
7. Going to Mexico or Canada, even by foot.
8. Driving a car
9. Opening a bank account
10. Applying for food stamps
11. Applying for welfare
12. Applying for Social Security
13. Picking up a prescription
14. Seeing an R rated movie or M rated video game
15. Renting an apartment
16. Adopting a pet
17. Buying a gun
18. Buying certain OTC medicines
19. Getting a free public transit pass

Stop, just stop!

Are those examples of where requiring photo IDs would cut down on fraud? I hope so. I hope you're not under the impression you need a photo ID to buy beer or cigarettes or even cash a check.

Uh, you almost always need to show an ID to buy beer or cigarettes. I'm 39 and get carded with almost every alcohol purchase.

You must look and act unusually immature and childish.

And as for cashing a check, you simply sign it and give it to a friend/family member who has a bank account.

I haven't heard specifically that you need a photo ID to get food stamps. It would probably shift my priors to have it confirmed.

The very first thing I googled said you don't

6: Green New Deal: its essence is best described as Jacobin. As with the original Jacobins, the intent is to tear down all that presently exists so that all might be build anew, free from the dead weight of all that previously existed.

The drawbacks to this are (1) to tear everything down one needs near-absolute power, yet there is no power without corruption, and great power inevitably creates great corruption; and (2) after you tear everything down, there's often precious little left with which to build anew.

Were this to actually succeed the likely result would be Venezuela, but on a continent-wide scale. Nonetheless, I doubt supporters of this understand or even know much about what befell Venezuela. For Venezuela is hardly a star on YouTube; indeed, Venezuela gets only the scantiest of coverage in The New York Times.

In any case, crying "it's too expensive!" will not derail it. But a robust ridicule might work, especially from someone like Schultz who at least has more credibility than, well, Trump.

This implies that the GOP has not spent the last thirty years basically tearing everything down

Tearing what down?

Oh my bad, I meant to say drowning it in a bathtub.

The quadrupling of federal expenditures in the past 30 years suggests the GOP's plan to tear everything down has been ineffective.

Not on an inflation adjusted basis, and if talking about spending on the common good, say the interstate system or something equivalent, the inflation adjusted spending probably dropped.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Worst case, "tearing everything down" is still deluded rhetoric.

Sure, drop the word “everything” and replace with “the structures, laws, and institutions they don’t like.”

Actually you guys are unintentionally making my point, which is that all the heart palpitations about the GND being some sort of scorched earth neutron bomb to everything we hold dear are overblown

As the smartest guy in the comments, I'll point out that "difference-in-differences" type statistical analysis--which I don't have time to explain to you all who don' t know statistics--would not catch those potential voters too lazy to even comply with the minimal requirements (the baseline "easiest" state to vote in, that has the minimal ID requirements). So in this sense the study is 'flawed'. A way of testing this hypothesis is to compare before and after voting in counties that raised the standard for voting, and see if there's a meaningful statistical drop-off, which I would intuit there is.

I for one, often living overseas (I'm in DC at the moment for business), found I could not vote anymore by absentee ballot so I dropped out, preferring to influence elections by simply donating money, which anyway is more efficacious.

Ostensive. There, I used that word, but my law-school favorite antonym is putative.

The crackdown on absentee ballots was long overdue. There were Democrats "harvesting" absentee ballots in Florida and Republicans doing it in NC-9. They are important and need to continue, but they are the number one area of fraud these days.

Does it reduce voter fraud?

In any case seems like a sensible policy to prevent any potential fraud

Did they study "reform" efforts such as shutting down large numbers of polling places, resulting in hours-long lines to vote?

You really can't fault mood affiliation when you appear to base your enthusiasm for this study based upon its results.

I find these demands for pure proof of identity very disturbing and reminiscent of bad times in the past. It was particularly interesting to note from the article that the IP regulations had negligible effect on the outcome of elections. I take it those who aren't entitled to drive can't vote either.
There are demands made by lawyers, estate agents and accountants in the UK for clients to prove their Identity Purity not just once but for every transaction. This puts the client in a subservient state of mind from the start.
In order to prevent foreigners using the state tax funded health service, there is talk of people having to prove the purity of their identity every time they visit a health facility. Again this would be insulting and demeaning.
Landlords are threatened with 14 years in prison if they don't treat prospective tenants this way, and get it right.
A better solution would be to issue people with identity cards, but I guess this won't happen because of the historical implications.
An estate agent told me of a case he had of an elderly lady who wanted to sell her home so that she could go into an old folks home on the proceeds. Considering what it costs in an old folks home, she must have had a nice home and been a person of means at one time. However she had been banned from driving for several years on medical grounds and did not travel abroad or own a shotgun and had not been to prison and got a discharge certificate. Although she could prove her identity via a pensions statement, her proof wasn't Pure enough without a photo ID. I am not sure what the final solution was, but it took nearly a year to work one out. Maybe she simply died over that time.

Even if you can't drive you can still get a state photo ID, in the DMV.

That's not an argument for why you should be required to do so.

In California one needs a photo ID to get welfare goodies. If you are poor and not qualified for welfare goodie then voter ID has much less utility. A poor person around here is unlikely to keep photo ID just to vote libertarian.

Don't know about CA, but walk into a nursing home and you'll probably find most people don't have un-expired photo IDs yet almost all will be on Medicare and probably Medicaid.

Which, come to think of it, is actually pretty interesting from a fraud perspective. With a medicare card you can charge the gov't thousands of dollars in services. Yet no photo id required...yet voting is so critical we need photo ids even though we have no evidence of any fraud beyond the trivial?

Interesting whataboutism. Now that you mention it, maybe we can do something about Medicare fraud too?

Not whataboutism at all. I would be more friendly to this policy if those advocating were advocating for actually using photo IDs everywhere so almost everyone would have to get one. Instead they just want people not to vote.

If this is about fraud then advocates have to explain why the ID policy only works for voting fraud?

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

You post too much also - 35 times in this thread. It must really push your buttons, and I understand why. The Democrats have long used voter fraud to win.

They stole a US Senate seat in NH:

Micro vs Macro problem. The real disenfranchisement of voters takes place through the census. With limited verification it is obvious that more congressional seats will be apportioned to districts with fewer and fewer citizens and legal residents.

I'll challenge the efficacy of this study by presenting 150 years of intent by those in power to suppress minority vote via such measures. People should be pissed about voter ID laws based on the historical context alone; whether it still works or not is besides the point.

Lead poisoning isn't affecting the population of Flint, Michigan so Tyler thinks you all chill out.

I'm not a fan of having to show my papers anytime I want to to even sneeze, but who are these people without IDs? Even besides voting and driving, it would seem that today you couldn't even pick your own nose without one. If these folks are so prevalent and so outside the norm of our bureaucratic ID-happy society, why are the supposedly so hell bent on voting?

" We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress."

Comments for this post are closed