After seeing a Facebook friend post a meme saying, "If you think every person should need an ID to vote, like this," I decided to respond with the following:
I don't usually chime in when it comes to politically-oriented posts, but as I feel the voter ID law debate is, for the most part, being inaccurately painted in a black-or-white manner, I thought I'd add a few shades of grey to the mix.
Here's a more thorough overview of the controversy surrounding the implementation of stricter voter ID laws - http://theweek.com/articles/442819/everything-need-know-about-voter-controversy
The stricter voter ID laws have affected the following demographics more than any other: Women, elders, minorities, students, and veterans. I'll now post quotes and links to articles pertaining to each and every one of those demographics and how they're directly impacted by the stricter voter ID laws:
Women -
"Here's where women get stuck. American women change their names in about 90 percent of marriages and divorces. So newly married and recently divorced women whose legal names do not match those of their current photo ID will face opposition when voting, especially in the seven states with the stricter voter-ID rules. They cannot provide personal information like a birthday or take an oath swearing to their identity in lieu of showing a photo ID. Instead, they will have to fill out substitute ballots and later return with valid documentation like a certified court document showing a divorce decree or marriage license.
Since only 66 percent of voting-age women have easy access to proof of citizenship and documentation with their current legal name, a significant number of women could be disenfranchised by the new laws." (http://prospect.org/article/new-voter-id-laws-target-women)
Elders -
"Nearly one in five citizens over 65 — about 8 million — lacks a current, government-issued photo ID, a 2006 Brennan Center study found. Most people prove their eligibility to vote with a driver's license, but people over 65 often give up their license and don't replace it with the state-issued ID that some states offer non-driving residents. People over 65 also are more likely to lack birth certificates because they were born before recording births was standard procedure.
Strict new photo ID laws could make voting this year more difficult for millions of voters, if the new laws stand, according to the Brennan Center.
In the states with strict photo ID voting laws, voters who show up without photo IDs generally are allowed to vote a provisional ballot that is counted only if the voter brings a photo ID to a government elections office within a few days, and may not be counted at all unless the election is close." (http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-01-2012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html)
Minorities -
"Laws that require photo ID at the polls vary, but the strictest laws limit the forms of acceptable documentation to only a handful of cards. For example, in Texas, voters must show one of seven forms of state or federal-issue photo ID, with a valid expiration date: a driver’s license, a personal ID card issued by the state, a concealed handgun license, a military ID, citizenship certificate or a passport. The name on the ID must exactly match the one on the voter rolls.
African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to lack one of these qualifying IDs, according to several estimates. Even when the state offers a free photo ID, these voters, who are disproportionately low-income, may not be able to procure the underlying documents, such as a birth certificate, to obtain one.
In Texas, for example, challengers to the law cited an African-American grandmother who could not afford the $25 to purchase her birth certificate to get an ID, and an elderly African-American veteran and longtime voter who was turned away at the polls in 2013 despite having three types of ID, because none qualified under the new law." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/) (also this article - http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/voter_id_and_drivers_license_o.html)
Students -
"In Ohio, legislators proposed a law that would have cost colleges millions of dollars for helping out-of-state students vote locally. The measure died amid criticism from state schools. In Maine, the Republican secretary of state — at the behest of the state party chairman — investigated 200 students for fraud. After finding no evidence, he sent the students a letter warning them to register their cars in Maine or to cancel their voter registrations.
In Texas, voters must show a photo ID. A state handgun license qualifies, but a state university identification card does not. North Carolina students have also complained of government efforts, distinct from the new voting law, to shut down voting sites at Appalachian State University and Winston-Salem State University.
Under the North Carolina law passed last year, the period for early voting was shortened and same-day registration was eliminated. Beginning in 2016, voters will need to show photo identification, and student ID cards, including those issued by state universities, will not be acceptable. In most instances, neither will an out-of-state driver’s license.
The law also eliminated a program in which teenagers filled out their voter-registration forms early and were automatically registered when they turned 18." (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/us/college-students-claim-voter-id-laws-discriminate-based-on-age.html?_r=0)
Veterans -
"In Wisconsin, a veteran with only his or her Veterans Affairs (VA) ID card will be turned away from the polls. "Unjust" and "unconscionable" don't cover this — we need uglier words to describe the disfranchisement of citizens who've served.
I met Sam Bulmer (pictured above) in Milwaukee at VETS Place Central, a shelter which provides transitional housing to homeless veterans. Sam spent 13 of his 63 years in the U.S. Air Force, serving some of that time with the Air Force Training Command. In Iceland, he served as an instructor during preparations for the Iran hostage crisis mission. Sam has no accepted photo ID card for voting in Wisconsin, but he has his VA ID card hanging around his neck. And he can't get a state ID card for free? Actually, no. The Division of Motor Vehicles won't believe Sam is a U.S. citizen until he shows them a certified copy of his birth certificate from Kansas, a document he can't obtain because Kansas wants him to show ID to get it. Sam isn't living off the grid or on the margins — he's worked for General Electric as a trainer on nuclear power plant control room simulation and is currently interviewing for jobs.
Last November, I sat with over 60 veterans like Sam in the basement of VETS Place Central where we talked about Wisconsin's new voter ID law. The vets stood when they spoke. One wanted to know why a military service ID card is good under the new law, but a photo ID card issued by the VA isn't. The VA ID has the veteran's name, a photo, and, if applicable, a special eligibility indicator, such as Service Connected, Purple Heart, or former POW. I didn't have an answer for the soldier — I don't think anyone does. I could tell they were shocked and angry, and rightfully so. That veteran who asked the question hit the nail on the head. Walking back to my car, I scribbled his point down on my legal pad, and the next morning, it was a claim in our lawsuit. The ACLU brought suit to defend the right of veterans to vote with their VA ID cards, because of the outcry in that room." (https://www.aclu.org/blog/willing-die-their-country-unable-vote-it)
So perhaps the debate isn't whether or not one should present some form of identification when voting; it's what forms of identification constitute as valid when at the voting booth. If we want to hail ourselves as a democracy, would it not make more sense to provide more options when it comes to providing identification on election day, and providing more avenues to obtain said identification, as opposed to making it more difficult for people to cast their votes on the first Tuesday in November? If a man or woman goes off to war to defend this country, should he or she not be able to safely use that very ID to vote on election day? To me anyway, it seems almost criminal to send soldiers into harm's way overseas, yet when they return home, tell them, "Sorry, but we're not going to accept that ID; better luck voting next time."
I don't usually chime in when it comes to politically-oriented posts, but as I feel the voter ID law debate is, for the most part, being inaccurately painted in a black-or-white manner, I thought I'd add a few shades of grey to the mix.
Here's a more thorough overview of the controversy surrounding the implementation of stricter voter ID laws - http://theweek.com/articles/442819/everything-need-know-about-voter-controversy
The stricter voter ID laws have affected the following demographics more than any other: Women, elders, minorities, students, and veterans. I'll now post quotes and links to articles pertaining to each and every one of those demographics and how they're directly impacted by the stricter voter ID laws:
Women -
"Here's where women get stuck. American women change their names in about 90 percent of marriages and divorces. So newly married and recently divorced women whose legal names do not match those of their current photo ID will face opposition when voting, especially in the seven states with the stricter voter-ID rules. They cannot provide personal information like a birthday or take an oath swearing to their identity in lieu of showing a photo ID. Instead, they will have to fill out substitute ballots and later return with valid documentation like a certified court document showing a divorce decree or marriage license.
Since only 66 percent of voting-age women have easy access to proof of citizenship and documentation with their current legal name, a significant number of women could be disenfranchised by the new laws." (http://prospect.org/article/new-voter-id-laws-target-women)
Elders -
"Nearly one in five citizens over 65 — about 8 million — lacks a current, government-issued photo ID, a 2006 Brennan Center study found. Most people prove their eligibility to vote with a driver's license, but people over 65 often give up their license and don't replace it with the state-issued ID that some states offer non-driving residents. People over 65 also are more likely to lack birth certificates because they were born before recording births was standard procedure.
Strict new photo ID laws could make voting this year more difficult for millions of voters, if the new laws stand, according to the Brennan Center.
In the states with strict photo ID voting laws, voters who show up without photo IDs generally are allowed to vote a provisional ballot that is counted only if the voter brings a photo ID to a government elections office within a few days, and may not be counted at all unless the election is close." (http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-01-2012/voter-id-laws-impact-older-americans.html)
Minorities -
"Laws that require photo ID at the polls vary, but the strictest laws limit the forms of acceptable documentation to only a handful of cards. For example, in Texas, voters must show one of seven forms of state or federal-issue photo ID, with a valid expiration date: a driver’s license, a personal ID card issued by the state, a concealed handgun license, a military ID, citizenship certificate or a passport. The name on the ID must exactly match the one on the voter rolls.
African-Americans and Latinos are more likely to lack one of these qualifying IDs, according to several estimates. Even when the state offers a free photo ID, these voters, who are disproportionately low-income, may not be able to procure the underlying documents, such as a birth certificate, to obtain one.
In Texas, for example, challengers to the law cited an African-American grandmother who could not afford the $25 to purchase her birth certificate to get an ID, and an elderly African-American veteran and longtime voter who was turned away at the polls in 2013 despite having three types of ID, because none qualified under the new law." (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/why-voter-id-laws-arent-really-about-fraud/) (also this article - http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/09/voter_id_and_drivers_license_o.html)
Students -
"In Ohio, legislators proposed a law that would have cost colleges millions of dollars for helping out-of-state students vote locally. The measure died amid criticism from state schools. In Maine, the Republican secretary of state — at the behest of the state party chairman — investigated 200 students for fraud. After finding no evidence, he sent the students a letter warning them to register their cars in Maine or to cancel their voter registrations.
In Texas, voters must show a photo ID. A state handgun license qualifies, but a state university identification card does not. North Carolina students have also complained of government efforts, distinct from the new voting law, to shut down voting sites at Appalachian State University and Winston-Salem State University.
Under the North Carolina law passed last year, the period for early voting was shortened and same-day registration was eliminated. Beginning in 2016, voters will need to show photo identification, and student ID cards, including those issued by state universities, will not be acceptable. In most instances, neither will an out-of-state driver’s license.
The law also eliminated a program in which teenagers filled out their voter-registration forms early and were automatically registered when they turned 18." (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/us/college-students-claim-voter-id-laws-discriminate-based-on-age.html?_r=0)
Veterans -
"In Wisconsin, a veteran with only his or her Veterans Affairs (VA) ID card will be turned away from the polls. "Unjust" and "unconscionable" don't cover this — we need uglier words to describe the disfranchisement of citizens who've served.
I met Sam Bulmer (pictured above) in Milwaukee at VETS Place Central, a shelter which provides transitional housing to homeless veterans. Sam spent 13 of his 63 years in the U.S. Air Force, serving some of that time with the Air Force Training Command. In Iceland, he served as an instructor during preparations for the Iran hostage crisis mission. Sam has no accepted photo ID card for voting in Wisconsin, but he has his VA ID card hanging around his neck. And he can't get a state ID card for free? Actually, no. The Division of Motor Vehicles won't believe Sam is a U.S. citizen until he shows them a certified copy of his birth certificate from Kansas, a document he can't obtain because Kansas wants him to show ID to get it. Sam isn't living off the grid or on the margins — he's worked for General Electric as a trainer on nuclear power plant control room simulation and is currently interviewing for jobs.
Last November, I sat with over 60 veterans like Sam in the basement of VETS Place Central where we talked about Wisconsin's new voter ID law. The vets stood when they spoke. One wanted to know why a military service ID card is good under the new law, but a photo ID card issued by the VA isn't. The VA ID has the veteran's name, a photo, and, if applicable, a special eligibility indicator, such as Service Connected, Purple Heart, or former POW. I didn't have an answer for the soldier — I don't think anyone does. I could tell they were shocked and angry, and rightfully so. That veteran who asked the question hit the nail on the head. Walking back to my car, I scribbled his point down on my legal pad, and the next morning, it was a claim in our lawsuit. The ACLU brought suit to defend the right of veterans to vote with their VA ID cards, because of the outcry in that room." (https://www.aclu.org/blog/willing-die-their-country-unable-vote-it)
So perhaps the debate isn't whether or not one should present some form of identification when voting; it's what forms of identification constitute as valid when at the voting booth. If we want to hail ourselves as a democracy, would it not make more sense to provide more options when it comes to providing identification on election day, and providing more avenues to obtain said identification, as opposed to making it more difficult for people to cast their votes on the first Tuesday in November? If a man or woman goes off to war to defend this country, should he or she not be able to safely use that very ID to vote on election day? To me anyway, it seems almost criminal to send soldiers into harm's way overseas, yet when they return home, tell them, "Sorry, but we're not going to accept that ID; better luck voting next time."
Comments
Post a Comment