JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY
URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003150
'Am I Ashamed of Who I Am?'
A modest voting reform runs up against Democratic demagoguery.
Tuesday, March 4, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST
Last year, Congress imposed some federal standards on the nation's antiquated election laws to help prevent another fiasco like the 2000 election in Florida. Along with providing money to upgrade voting systems and improve registration procedures, the new law will also require first-time voters who register by mail to show some proof of identity, either a photo ID or some other government document. This minimal requirement will make it easier to ensure that only citizens vote, that they only vote once, and that they don't cast votes in the name of dead people.
It usually surprises Americans that only 11 states require all voters to show ID. (They are Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia.) Other countries--both developed and developing--do much more in the way of requiring identification in order to vote. Recent internationally supervised elections in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and Guyana have all stipulated that voters had to present ID to cast a ballot.
But attempts to impose identification requirements here run into furious objections that they would discriminate against poor and minority voters. In New Mexico, state Rep. Max Coll, a Democrat, justified blocking a photo ID bill by calling it an effort "to suppress the vote of poorly educated people who don't understand exactly what they need to bring as ID or anything like that."
That is sheer demagoguery. Almost everyone needs a photo ID to survive in today's society. You can't cash a check or open a video-rental account without a driver's license or the equivalent, and all states provide a low-cost photo identification cards for nondrivers. Under last year's federal election reform, you don't even need one of these. Acceptable proof of identity can include a utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck or any government document showing your name and address. Someone who lacks any of those things is a rare specimen indeed in 21st century America.
Despite objections like Mr. Coll's, a growing concern over ballot fraud is prompting states to pass ID requirements that go beyond the federal law, which applies only to first-time voters who registered by mail.
In South Dakota's razor-thin U.S. Senate election last year, 277 people reported to the FBI that their signatures on absentee ballots or voter registration form had been forged. Two people were charged with voter registration and absentee-ballot fraud. On Election Day, they were numerous complaints of voters on Indian reservations casting ballots in someone else's name, although law enforcement officials haven't indicted anyone.
By a 49-20 vote, South Dakota's House passed a bill last month that would require voters to present ID. "There is no way that everyone in South Dakota can know everyone anymore," says state Rep. Matt McCaulley, a Republican who sponsored the bill. The Senate takes up the measure this week.
In Colorado, the state Senate last month approved an ID bill that would also require county clerks to check the written signatures of people who cast absentee ballots against their registration signatures. While the 18-16 vote broke mostly along party lines, and the chief sponsor, Sen. Ken Arnold, is a Republican, Sen. Alice Nichol, a Democrat, broke ranks. She said she couldn't comprehend why anyone wouldn't be willing to show identification: "Am I ashamed of who I am?"
As in New Mexico, opponents demagogued the issue. Some of Sen. Arnold's opponents likened his bill to the Jim Crow-era poll tax. "We are running the risk of disenfranchising seniors, college students, people of color--a lot of folks who just generally don't have identification," said Sen. Peter Groff, a Democrat. However, he failed to produce any statistics backing up his claim that many people in today's America lack ID. Besides, Sen. Arnold's bill allows people without a photo ID to cast a provisional ballot by signing an oath under penalty of perjury that they are a valid voter.
The secretaries of state in both North Dakota and Montana are also supporting photo ID bills. "It makes sense to give people a sense of greater security that their ballot is sacred," says Montana's Secretary of State Bob Brown.
While Democrats usually oppose photo ID requirements, it only takes one good local scandal to galvanize enough voter support to turn the partisan calculations around. An absentee ballot scandal forced Miami's mayor from office in 1997, and that prompted the late Gov. Lawton Chiles, a Democrat, to sign a reform bill that not only included photo ID, but also upgraded most voter fraud crimes to felonies. Without that bill, Florida might have been an even bigger mess in 2000. A similar scandal in St. Louis in the 2000 and 2001 elections persuaded Democratic Gov. Bob Holden to sign a photo ID bill passed by a Democratic state House and a Republican Senate.
Those who complain of disfranchisement fail to note that when someone casts a phony vote, everyone's right to vote suffers. Photo ID bills won't eliminate fraud entirely, but they discourage casual cheating and are a low-cost, low-maintenance way to make sure voters will continue to have confidence in elections. |
