Voter photo id laws.

I suppose Wylted's right about the trouble with undefined words. I didn't bother giving any definition because of my faith in Wylted's good character (and I was proven right). But I'll take more care next time. The debate's about laws passed in places like Texas, Wisconsin, or Indiana; what's required is a government-issued photo ID (e.g. a drivers license).--“There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” McCutcheon v. FEC, 134 S. Ct. 1434 (2014). Photo ID laws abridge that right without justification.(1) Photo ID laws place a severe burden on a significant number of voters. Studies indicate that 11 percent of American citizens, more than 21 million people, don’t have a state-issued photo ID. These studies also show that millions of American citizens don’t have “readily available documentary proof of citizenship,” and many more – “primarily women” – don’t “have proof of citizenship with their current name.” The “Citizens Without Proof” report also found that “certain groups – primarily the poor, elderly, and minority citizens – are less likely to possess these forms of documentation than the general population.” [1] [2]Photo ID requirements place a severe burden on these voters. Study after study has confirmed that “the more barriers placed in front of potential voters ... the less likely they are to vote.” [3] A study published by the CalTech/MIT Voting Technology Project found that photo ID laws placed “significant negative burdens on voters” and thus “depress[ed] turnout … [especially] for less educated and lower income populations.” [4] Other studies echo that conclusion. [5] [6] [7] Perhaps more telling, when I googled the issue, I couldn't find a single legitimate study supporting the notion that photo ID laws don't depress voter turnout. Maybe Wylted will find some.The problem is the difficulty some people (especially low-income individuals) have with getting a state-issued photo ID. The first obstacle is figuring out how to get an ID. That might seem easy to some, but for others, especially the less educated, it’ll be much harder. If another document (e.g. a birth certificate) is needed, they’ll also have to figure out the requirements of the issuing agency, which adds yet another layer of complexity to the process. The next step is going to the DMV. For nondrivers, which many of these people are, that can be an insuperable burden, especially if they also lack a certified copy of their birth certificate (as that means multiple trips). The difficulty isn't just the time involved but also the financial burden: transportation costs, plus some of these folks might have to take off work (since DMVs aren't always open on weekends), which means they'll have to forgo hourly wages or use vacation time. Some states charge a fee for photo IDs. And even if a state provides free photo identification, that doesn't lessen the cost of documents needed to get the ID, most notably birth certificates. A report from Harvard Law School estimates “the expenses [of obtaining a photo ID], for documentation, travel, and waiting time are significant—especially for minority groups and low-income voters—typically ranging from about $75 to $175.... Even when adjusted for inflation, these figures represent substantially greater costs than the $1.50 poll tax outlawed by the 24th amendment in 1964.” [8]A photo ID law could also burden those who come to polls and can't vote because they simply forgot their IDs, or because their ID isn't valid anymore. The latter category, for instance, would include people who don’t drive anymore but still thought their expired license was valid identification. For instance, a Congresswoman in Indianapolis went to her polling place to vote and was told that her photo ID issued by the federal government wasn't acceptable because, even though it was issued for the 109th Congress, it had no expiration date. [9]Finally, keep in mind that voting is a low-reward activity for any given individual, because he or she knows that elections aren't decided by one vote. Because rewards are so low for voting, even a small cost or burden can depress voter turnout. But note that photo ID laws impose much more than a small cost; low-income individuals simply cannot afford to pay $75 to $175 just so that they can vote. That cost virtually guarantees that they won't vote, given the perception that their "one vote" won't matter.(2) Voter-impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare and doesn't justify photo ID requirements.The argument given for these laws is to prevent voter-impersonation fraud. But it turns out there's virtually no in-person voter fraud nationally. In fact, a conservative U.S. circuit judge, Richard Posner, who initially upheld photo ID laws as constitutional on the basis of fraud concerns, recently changed his mind after reevaluating the evidence. He called the expressed concern about fraud “a mere fig leaf,” and said photo ID laws instead “appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks.” [10]Posner's view is backed up by multiple studies and reports on the issue. "A study of 2,068 alleged cases conducted by the News21 journalism consortium found that since 2000 there have been only ten cases of in-person voter fraud that could have been prevented by photo ID laws. Out of 146 million registered voters, this is a ratio of one case of voter fraud for every 14.6 million eligible voters--more than a dozen times less likely than being struck by lightning.” [8] Indeed, the most comprehensive study of voter fraud to date reveals absolutely no confirmed incidents of voter-impersonation fraud. [11] Similarly, a recent DOJ report comprehensively surveying election-related misconduct since 2002 confirmed that voter-impersonation fraud is not a threat to the integrity of elections. [12] Not a single one of the convictions detailed in the DOJ report involved in-person voter-impersonation fraud. Other studies confirm these results. [13] [14] Even Fox News, whose passion for conservative causes has never been questioned, acknowledges that voter fraud is extremely rare. [15]The reason in-person voter fraud is so rare is because it's such an irrational way to go about altering the outcome of an election. Just think about the risks to politicians of orchestrating a massive campaign of voter-impersonation fraud, since only a massive campaign will increase a candidate's vote total by enough to swing all but the very closest elections. And think of the heavy punishments for massive election fraud. And besides the risks to the politicians, think of how much it would cost to orchestrate an effective voter-impersonation fraud, given the number of voters who must be bribed, and in amounts generous enough to overcome their fear of being detected, and if detected prosecuted. There would have to be too many co-conspirators with too great a chance of being detected. It turns out there's a recent study for that too, commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission, which said that "impersonation of voters is probably the least frequent type of [election] fraud because it is the most likely type of fraud to be discovered, there are stiff penalties associated with this type of fraud, and it is an inefficient method of influencing an election.” [16] The overwhelming direction of the evidence (and logic) is that in-person voter-impersonation fraud isn't a concern.ConclusionThe evidence shows both that photo ID requirements discourage voting and that voter-impersonation fraud is extremely rare. This implies that the net effect of such requirements is to impede voting by people easily discouraged from voting, most of whom are low-income individuals.These individuals tend to lean Democratic, and it turns out there's also tons of evidence that photo ID laws are motivated by a Republican political agenda. Keith G. Bentele and Erin E. O'Brien, in their article “Jim Crow 2.0? Why States Consider and Adopt Restrictive Voter Access Policies," present evidence that restrictive voter access policies such as photo ID requirements are highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature. [17] Judge Posner, a conservative judge, says the same thing: “There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud,” Posner writes, “… and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens.” [10]Sources:[1] www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_39242.pdf[2] http://webstorage3.mcpa.virginia.edu...[3] David Schultz, Less than Fundamental: The Myth of Voter Fraud and the Coming of the Second Great Disenfranchisement, pg 485.[4] www.votingtechnologyproject.org/sites/default/files/vtp_wp57.pdf[5] www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/d/download_file_50903.pdf[6] http://journalistsresource.org...[7] www.gao.gov/assets/670/665966.pdf[8] http://today.law.harvard.edu...[9] www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201897.html[10] https://s3.amazonaws.com...[11] http://www.demos.org...[12] http://www.justice.gov...[13] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...[14] https://www.brennancenter.org...[15] www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/24/voter-id-laws-target-rarely-occurring-voter-fraud/[16] http://www.eac.gov...[17] http://cdn.umb.edu...