There is no widespread "voter fraud". Period. It is the GOP and Trump that advance this dubious claim. If a political party had confidence in it's ability to represent the people it would not try to suppress the voting process.
9
Quickly read the paper. It uses a very large database that covers 08-16. They use standard econometrics methods (difference in difference) that's highly regarded because it compares effects between places that initiate voter ID rules vs. those that don't, controlling for general temporal effects (voter participation nationally varies over time). The study does indicate voter ID laws have not been effective at changing turnout. I suspect the reason is that the folks who don't have ID were folks who generally didn't vote anyway. Or perhaps democratic groups spent more heavily to register and get folks to the polls in these places. Regardless, the principle is questionable- citizens are supposed to be able to vote. A lot of citizens don't drive or travel internationally so they don't need IDs.
2
Voter ID laws might not affect turnout in and of themselves, but I think its reasonable to think that they do when used in conjunction with other restrictions, such as frequent voter roll purges and restrictions on obtaining a state-issued ID. These disproportionately affect the working class who may not have great records (like keeping original birth certificates) or the time to re-register. I'd be interested to see if all of these restrictions still have a negligible impact.
It also overlooks the fact that voting is the cornerstone of every democracy and SHOULD be easy. People shouldn't have to jump through crazy hoops to exercise such a fundamental right. Yes we need to have institutions and restrictions to prevent fraud and misconduct, but I have a hard time believing that is the main goal of these GOP policies when voter fraud is such a small issue.
Lastly, I find if ironic that conservatives are so blase about restrictions on voting rights when religious freedom and 2nd amendment rights are so sacrosanct. No we can't have any regulations that try to prohibit churches from engaging in political activity! That would infringe on my freedom of religion!
No we can't have any regulations that allow greater scrutiny of gun purchases to prevent sales to people who are mentally unstable or otherwise cannot/should not own a gun! That would infringe on my right to bear arms!
If only they loved the right to vote as much as their churches and guns...
9
so why republicans are against any measure to increase turn out. Case in point recent refusal of Mitch McConnell to consider making voting day a holiday so every voter would be able to vote. If it was up to the republicans and conservatives will turn back the clock to the days of tax poll so only well connected and rich white male will be elected to any office in USA. Americans are not able to look and learn from other democracies that provide all the means to making mandatory to vote to make their democracies more representative.
1
Mr.Douthat blithely reports that a study has shown Voter ID laws don't depress voting.
The Voting Rights Act was specifically passed to overturn Jim Crow terrorism.
Then gutted when The Chief Justice said, “Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
There are still people in this country who remember relatives killed attempting to exercise their franchise.
Times have not changed Mr. Doubthat!
2
My hope is that this piece is intended for the senators and representatives who attempt to pass laws that could potentially restrict voting. They are the ones who control the spin on the attempts to pass such laws. And, contrary to the author's view, the issue of laws affecting the ability to vote is not a situation of equal blame on both sides of the political aisle. Clearly, one party has attempted to promulgate voter ID laws while the other party has attempted to scrutinize whether voters have been disenfranchised, for what ever reason. Vigilance is not the same as obstructionism.
1
I'm not sure how Douthat missed a very recent study from Brown University that specifically points to the voter ID law in Rhode Island leading to a "significant decline in turnout."
https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20190210/political-scene-brown-academics-study-on-ri-voter-id-law-raises-questions
3
This statement is to me patently false. In my home precinct, a Church two blocks from my house, I discussed this issue with Republican polling workers here in Kansas. They admitted to me outright and with a distinct asperity that the effect of the Kansas voter ID law would be to discourage older voters and others from registering to vote in subsequent elections from the moment they were unable to provide the requisite photo or other ID in any given registration or election. The whole shaming aim here in Kansas was to confine the Republican Party primary elections--usually held in the sweltering August weather--to as few party activists as possible, and then to rely on the knee-jerk Republican habits of so many Kansans to do the rest at general election time. Fortunately, the absurd radicalism of the Brownback government's effort to starve, outsource or smash the public institutions of the people of Kansas provoked a reaction that aroused the public here sufficiently to be on its guard. We'll see how long this lasts, but it is just not true that these voter ID laws do not have an effect on people's motives to register and vote. I don't know this for a fact, but I am willing to bet that the study he cites in the early part of this statement registered little more than was the increased turnout of radicalized right-wing voters offsetting the loss of other voters. They were out in force here in Kansas. They are not yet done and they remain organized.
2
Between 1% and 3% of Americans who are eligible to vote do not have the document(s) Republics insist those voters must have to vote.
That more than 80% of those Americans are Democrat leaning voters is all one needs to know about Voter ID efforts to disenfranchise mostly poor and Minority Americans from their right to the ballot.
1
Voter ID is clearly hypocrisy and suppression. Beyond the fact that casting a ballot fraudulently is already a crime, the fact is that an individual vote, valid or not, is by itself almost meaningless and thus does not need to be prevented at all costs. It is only in the aggregate that votes become powerful. Those concerned about fraud could totally eliminate the problem by getting rid of the fiction that among millions of votes, an election can be fairly decided by a plurality of one. We should say that any election victory of, say, less than 1% must be decided by a runoff. Better yet, make preferential voting mandatory which builds the runoff right into the initial vote. This way, it would take a large number of fraudulent votes to actually affect an outcome.
We need to attain a system where every citizen of age can vote easily and freely -- get rid of suppression of convicts, poor people, and those on the margins of society. A reasonable judicial system would look at these ID/suppression attempts and laugh them out of court. I still have the vain hope that a future Supreme Court will someday review these decisions allegedly based on "strict constructionism" and overturn them with opinions based on contemporary adaptation of the wording of the Consititution, i.e. essentially conveying this sentiment regarding their predecessors, "What were they thinking?"
All attempts to keep any eligible voter from casting a ballot should be classed as treason.
2
Voter ID laws are intended to disenfranchise those voters who are not well informed, and have difficulty obtaining state ID, as has been implemented by the GOP. The reason is that these laws are never coupled with, or preceded by, actual efforts to help more eligible voters get proper ID, which it not the intent of the GOP. So in its direct aftermath, the voter ID law will have a larger impact than over time, when these problems get ironed out.
I know this can't be answered, but I wonder how many folks who cannot get the ID they need would actually turn up to vote anyway. Turnout is so appalling among the voting public that I find it hard to believe that having acceptable ID is the answer.
1
@Eric Key...That misses the point. Voting is not a privilege, it is a right; and it is the foundation of democracy. Whether someone would otherwise avail themselves of the opportunity to vote or not is irrelevant. You either support democracy or you do not.
3
When I breezily walk to my polling station (10 minutes), tell them my name (1 min), sign on the dotted line (5 seconds), vote (5 minutes), and then return home (10 minutes) to turn on the TV and see 2-, 3-hour lines inside and outside Philadelphia and Atlanta and other places where there are brown faces, you can understand why I'd be skeptical that voter ID laws and republican efforts to discourage participation among democrat-leaning voters is a big nothing-burger.
I'm all for informing our policies with evidence-based research. Let's start by having your republican friends and colleagues take global warming seriously.
And, as for participating in our democracy, let's not use "it has no effect on the outcome" as a justification for disenfranchising our black and brown compatriots.
5
@Paul In fairness, I get that you are urging republicans to drop these measures... but you do so in a way that minimizes the difficulties these laws pose to our fellow citizens. If nothing else, let's make voting easier and not harder. As I type these banal words, it's shocking to me that they need to be repeated.
3
There should be both a legal mandate with the necessary budget and staff to assure that all eligible voters receive the required ID for voting free of charge. In a Democracy, there can be no expense spared to assure that it remains, well, a Democracy.
1
Tell you what: I'll be glad to be required to show my ID if the other side makes it easier and cheaper to get an ID, easier to register, and easier to vote.
The Republicans passionately resisted the "motor voter" law, which allowed people to register to vote when they renewed their driver's license. If you live in a rural or affluent area, it's a snap to register; if you live in an urban area (which often votes Democratic), something like the motor voter law was a godsend.
Just...please.
I've lived in affluent suburbs, and it's a snap to vote there...never had I needed to wait for the hours, as do people in urban (read: Democratic) areas.
A large percentage of the Republican base lives in sparsely populated areas. It's easy to vote when there are, like, ten people who live in your precinct.
Fine. I'll bring my ID, and everything. Whatever you want to make sure that there's no voter fraud...you got it.
But this isn't about compromise. It's about one side wanting to make it as difficult as possible for a select group of people to vote.
Geez, guys, I can deal with it if you just come out and say it. Cindy Hyde Smith joked around about making it difficult for liberals to vote. She's not the only one.
I don't want to make it difficult for anyone to vote. If you don't like the person I voted for, I don't want to stop you from canceling my vote..
Voter ID? Fine. Let's make it a snap to register and vote. Let's make Election Day a holiday. God Bless America.
4
"At the same time there’s also no question that a lot of Republican operatives pushing voter ID laws are cynics who expect their party to benefit from lower minority turnout, and a number of professional right-wing partisans — including our president — see an upside in frightening their voters or viewers with the racialized threat of “urban” ballot-stuffing.
"Which, again, is what makes the evidence from this study so helpful: It offers reasons for both the conservative sincerely worried about voter fraud and the operative cynically hoping for lower Democratic turnout to let this issue slide."
Ross, this frames it nicely.
Now, whom would you predict would change behavior relative to facts?
Camera roll: Here comes Kelley Anne Conway to explain, yet again, why voter ID laws are protecting the country as we know it against M-13.
Conservatives are "sincere" on this issue?
Let me introduce you to your one time fellow talking head, John Fund, who funded himself for quite a few years based on what he knew to be a lie, yet it was good for his business, so he flogged it continuously.
And Donald Trump?
He of the 2 million of so "illegal votes," especially in California, or whatever the number was by which he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.
Too little too late, Ross.
You should have been calling out this post-truth fraud years ago.
1
If voter ID laws don’t matter, why have them in the first place?
2
@Bevan Davies
A solution chasing a problem.
Not unlike Medicare fraud---the GOP loves to blame patients ripping off the system, when in reality it is the doctors and pharm. companies.
It's not the voters who are the problem---it is the corrupt candidates who are cheating.
3
If it wasn’t for abortion, Douthat would be a natural centrist Democrat
1
My guess is that ol' Ross doesn;'t know much about the state of Ga.
Wonder why.
1
I do not object to The New York Times publishing so-called conservatives who actually are right-wingers. I do object to The New York Times publishing lies, and Mr. Douthat's column is one lie after another. Some evidence, which is a concept beyond his ability to comprehend:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/10/voter-suppression-wisconsin-election-2016/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/09/report-voter-id-laws-reduce-turnout-more-among-african-american-and-younger-voters/?utm_term=.734f5a9f3a11
Those are just to start. The Times should be ashamed of itself.
3
Please come to Georgia and see how the Voter ID requirement works to prevent people from registering to vote. Many people have no id. None. And very little in the way of documentation of their birth and life. And getting those documents costs money they don't have. Talk with Fallon McClure at Spread the Vote. Talk with any of her volunteers about the amount of time and work it takes to help 1 person get identification. https://www.spreadthevote.org/georgia/. It's no myth down here.
3
NYT--- “Some Republicans Acknowledge Leveraging Voter ID Laws for Political Gain”---NYT
“Republicans Admit Voter ID Laws Are Aimed at Democratic Voters.....confessing the true reasons for the voter-ID laws they’re pushing, says Jamelle Bouie.’ Daily Beast.
(Bouie, now a NYT columnist)
Our norms are so distorted, that the GOP can legally undermine democracy in various ways--- gerrymandering, and also cooperating (colluding?) with super rich donors in policy making--- re most issues--- taxes, climate change, health care, gun laws, etc.
They use fake appeals to Americanism, Freedom, Liberty, to hide behind. Then GOP state media, Fox News, uses fake news to hide the damage.
In a truly operating democracy, we would have:
1. National laws on voting rules, consistent for all, not left up to states or party to manipulate.
2. National laws against closing polling places that force voters to travel long distances, then stand for hours in long lines---when they have jobs they can't leave, and child care duties.
3. Independent commissions to draw voter districts, not parties.
4. Return to past sensible campaign finance laws to stop the legalized influence of big money on elections and lawmaking. This poisons politics as it forces both parties to compete, giving big money outsized power.
Compare to rules that are more mainstream in countries that actually do operate as democracies.
" , conservatives have touted tougher identification requirements at the polls as a means to fight the scourge of voter fraud, "
Stop right there ! This in incorrect. The correction, based on the facts, is, " the fraudulently alleged 'scourge of voter fraud' "
Then the article goes on to claim that ID laws are totally okay?!? = No one has stayed home because they saw a billboard saying that would go to jail if they voted incorrectly? = No one has ever had the 'book thrown at them' because they thought they could vote but they were wrong? = No one has ever been turned away? = No one was purged from the lists but not informed???????
1
Can we please just join the rest of the developed world and require voters to identify themselves already?
Democrats, you think there is negligible election fraud? Prove it by requiring voter identification. Just imagine how wonderful it will feel to stop the whining from some quarters that elections are being stolen by hordes of sneaky illegals. Maybe you could wrangle a national election-day holiday out of the deal.
And no, requiring voter identification will not turn us into an apartheid system; unless you consider such countries like Canada, France, Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden to be.
Or we could go whacky and emulate the Swiss, who-- in lieu of voter identification-- may instead present their active-duty military sidearm, or ceremonial sword.
3
@Alexander
In the last decade, voter ID requirements in many states haven't stopped the whining.
@Alexander...How about we require government to provide the voter ID at no cost and at minimal effort of the prospective voter beyond a request to register.
4
The disrespect to minorities is intentional and essential not accidental: the point is to embolden white supremacists and encourage white nationalists.
A new study confirms that Ross Douthat's
opinion pieces aren't that important.
4
"@DanP
Cashing checks, driving, and buying beer are not Constitutional rights and anyone with an existing bank account can deposit a check with no I.D. needed and then use a debit card without I.D. to access the funds. New cards are sent automatically. If my license is expired, my spouse can buy beer for me, but can't vote for me. My spouse can also buy a gun for me and legally transfer it to me, but can't vote for me. It's easier to get a gun than it is to vote.
I have no issue with requiring a photo I.D. for new registrants, but when it comes to people who already provided I.D. when they initially registered and have been voting for years, there is no reason why an expired driver's license shouldn't suffice. A current utility bill can confirm the address. There is no legitimate reason to be that strict. If I use my I.D. to buy a gun, I don't lose my Second Amendment rights if my license later expires.
If the requirement for voter ID does not change outcomes why not require it?
Was the study done in and for THIS country?
Cantoni is from a school in Bologna. Pons is from Harvard but works in the Center for European Studies.
How can Mr. Douthat believe that the right's obsession with voter fraud is sincere when he admits there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud? If it is sincere, it must also be ignorant.
Ross, Ross, Ross. Have you no memory? The Republicans quite arguably won the 2000 presidential election by systematically disenfranchising large numbers of African-American voters, and since then they've been working on ways to diminish voter turnout amongst those likely to vote against them. After all, it only takes a few votes in a few key states to turn an election. And although they are try to disguise their true intentions, every so often a Republican state legislator slips up and crows about how they're keeping opponents from voting, e.g. from your very own paper:
Some Republicans Acknowledge Leveraging Voter ID Laws for Political Gain
A trove of documents reveal Republican politicians drawing on fears of election fraud to prevent voters — usually Democratic — from casting ballots.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html
1
Um, what doe your recommendation to" let this issue slide" even mean? Keep the voter ID laws on the books? Eliminate them? Or just stop debating them? Talk about lack of clarity.
2
As usual, Douthat is the smuggest of the smug and if we would only bow to his view of the world, we'd be so much better off. GOP is completely disingenous on this issue. They don't believe in voter fraud for a minute but they sure believe in disenfranchisement and voter suppression. Why don't you turn your attention to gerrymandering and get your GOP buddies to back off that? They all go together in the disgusting toxic stew of minority voter suppression. What could be more telling than McConnell screaming bloody murder at the idea of making election day a national holiday? More people will vote!? How outrageous.
3
Ross, what you don’t seem to get is that if even one American is disenfranchised, we are all diminished.
1
Sen. Mitch McConnell, Republican leader of the U.S. Senate, responded to a proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday thusly"
“'This is the Democrat plan to restore democracy?' said Mr. McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the Senate majority leader, chuckling to himself. 'A power grab that’s smelling more and more like exactly what it is.'”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/politics/election-day-holiday-mcconnell.html
That tells you everything you need to know about the GOP attitude toward voting. (And the fact that some states closed many local DMV offices shortly after voter ID laws were passed gives you another clue.)
2
Personally as an Australian I was shocked to learn that you don’t require ID to vote. I would have thought it was a given. The funny thing is Democrats often tout the idea of having voting made compulsory, like it is here in Australia, but what they conveniently forget is that in order to do that, you have to present ID to have your name marked off. Otherwise anyone could turn up and mark off your name to stop you from getting a fine.
Instead it is claimed that having to show ID is somehow racist. I’m certainly not the Republican type, but the suggestion that your birth certificate is a racist document is, frankly, comical.
I’ve said it before I’ll say it again: what a strange, twisted country you people live in...
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
Baloney. It's part of a coordinated strategy to suppress votes that are likely Democratic, which is why they also went after Sunday voting, early voting, election day registration, and preregistration for 17 year olds who would turn 18 before election day but after the deadline to register.
2
While I am not convinced by just one study, it has been noticeable how discussions about the voter ID issue have been almost completely devoid of information on impacts.
When on rare occasions some numbers ARE presented, concerning how many voters or would-be voters are (or could be) impacted by voter ID regulations, they have always looked quite small relative to the total amount of people voting.
2
The voter ID debate does reflect a real clash of interests. People who pay most of the taxes tend to prefer that the vote be restricted to people like them, so that their taxes can be spent mainly on things that benefit them. Historically, people often had to own property or have access to money they could spare in order to vote; in the South, where poll taxes were popular, the poor tended to be mainly outside the money economy.
People with lots of money now have a greater voice because of the influence of money on political campaigns. They have one vote but can influence others because they can pay for unlimited propaganda (which is not guaranteed to work but sometimes does). Since they are successful (or lucky, or good scammers, or had the right ancestors) they think their opinions should have greater weight. And the importance of money in our electoral system gives them what they think is right.
It seems that Mr Douthat is trying to diminish the very idea that voter suppression occurs in any form. I'd like to hear his take on gerrymandering districts.
This form of suppression works not at the ballot box but at voter registration. No point registering if you can't afford the time and money to get an acceptable ID.
There is some major sophistry here.
1
Yes, but the voter ID question is just one small aspect of the pattern of voter suppression as practiced by the GOP. I agree that requiring an ID is not as onerous as some might suggest. But gerrymandering, closing polling places in minority communities and in college towns, reducing polling hours and workers, and numerous other tactics to reduce the "power grab," as Mitch McConnell describes it, are what makes people doubt the Republicans' honesty.
2
As a resident of Georgia, I feel particularly qualified to comment on the issue based on our recent election for senator. The Secretary of State, Brian Kemp (R), was allowed to run for office while retaining the power to influence the outcome.
He purged over 100,000 voter registrations through the "exact match" law, passed in 2017 at Mr. Kemp’s urging, by the Republican-dominated state legislature; closed polling places in districts that typically voted Democrat; sent fewer voting machines & more broken machines to these same areas. People waited up to 4 hours to cast their ballots, forcing the polls to stay open far past the official closing time.
In the 14 years I've lived here, I voted at the public library a block away, where the typical wait was 20 minutes. This year, that polling place was closed & moved to a location a 10-minute drive away. [Did I mention I live in John Lewis' district, which encompasses much of downtown Atlanta, & which is minority majority?] Most people living in the city don't drive cars, relying on public transportation; there was no easy way to get there. Many voters lost valuable work hours to exercise their civic duty.
But the districts outside the city had so many working machines that there was no wait time at all.
The final tallies showed the Democrat, Stacey Abrams, lost by merely 1.4%. It was astonishingly clear that had Kemp recused himself, Abrams would have won the election by a large margin.
6
Since I worked at a poll for quite a few years before voter id was required and several years after an official picture id was required I didn't see much difference other than an attitude change in the voters. I live in a deep red state and I did see some elderly people having problems with the change.
If conservatives sincerely believe that the infinitesimal, virtually unmeasurable voter fraud is a real issue, they have serious cognitive dissonance. Let's see Douthat explain the North Carolina and Atlanta election disasters, the sudden disappearances or inaccessibility of voting precincts for minorities, and the daylong voting lines that coincidentally often happen in poor areas.
4
You may be right. But clearly Republicans think voter ID laws help suppress the black vote. Taken in isolation, there might be some plausibility in asserting that it's about combating fraud, but there is no anti-fraud imperative to gerrymandering, restrictions on voting hours, reduced early voting, tight restrictions on absentee voting, voting machines that don't produce a paper trail, or inadequate provision of voting machines at polling places (primary in poor/inner-city precincts).
Get the GOP to back off on all these measures, and we can talk about a truce.
3
An argument I've heard, that Ross doesn't deal with, is that in our current environment when voter ID laws are in the public eye that that very debate helps prompt higher mobilization among African-Americans and other groups perceived to be targeted by those laws. If the laws continue to exist, but fade into the background, the concern is that they will start to affect turnout disproportionately among minority and working class voters.
You may be right. But clearly Republicans think voter ID laws help suppress the black vote. Taken in isolation, there might be some plausibility in asserting that it's about combating fraud, but there is no anti-fraud imperative to gerrymandering, restrictions on voting hours, reduced early voting, tight restrictions on absentee voting, voting machines that don't produce a paper trail, or inadequate provision of voting machines at polling places (primary in poor/inner-city precincts).
Get the GOP to back off on all these initiatives, and we can talk.
1
Ross, the voter ID laws are just one part of the disenfranchisement agenda. Couple that with closing voting locations places in urban centers, reduction of early voting and purging of the voter rolls (I'm talking to you, Kemp!) are all contributing factors. The republicans that enact them tout them to their legions of ways to diminish competitor votes. The state of Pennsylvania assembly famously stated exactly that.
2
A study. New data. Expert analysis. It would be nice to live in a world where such was persuasive. But keep tilting at windmills, Russ. At least we are agreed that data should matter.
1
I've always suspected the same and would be happy to let the whole thing drop - except for (as you briefly mentioned but then dropped) the subjects of extended voting hours/days, voting by mail, and the most insidious one that you didn't bring up, closing polling stations in poorer areas.
Here in CA we have a 'permanent' vote by mail option. It does cause some problems with vote counting (because vote packets postmarked on election day are accepted, it probably should be the day before). But overall there is no problem with vote integrity, and it's wonderful that those few of us that still vote at polling places have an easy time of it. Join the 21st Century, America.
It is sad that such an intelligent person and talented writer like Mr. Douthat is wrong on so many issues.
The issue is not exclusively Voter ID Laws, but the entire Republican concerted effort at VOTER SUPPRESSION!!
As far as the issue of Voter ID is concerned, whether or not it is effective in swinging elections to Republicans, the examples of fraudulent voting are extremely rare, not the millions that Trump, Kobach and like-minded liars would have us believe.
On the other hand, voter suppression techniques (including Voter Id Laws) do have a great impact on elections. Limiting voting hours, closing polling locations, making registration costly and difficult, expunging eligible voters from the rolls through cross-check and for not voting in recent elections have tremendous implications in elections, and combined with Gerrymandering, give Republicans a distinct and unfair advantage and subvert the greater will of the electorate.
Any of these suppression techniques may or may not tip the balance, but would Mr. Douthat argue their combined effect is not significant?
2
Just picture the scene--- a bunch of Republicans sitting around their maps, planning how to reduce Dem voter turnout, deciding:
Which DMVs and polling places to close.
Which voter ID laws to pass.
Which districts to gerrymander.
All to strengthen their hold on power, and weaken our democracy.
We need a leaked recording of their planning meetings.
On the media they and their special columnists are selling their party as the protectors of Americanism, Freedom, Liberty, and Small Government.
3
Here's the difference:
Voter ID laws are based on a lie.
Voter disenfranchisement is real.
If voter ID laws are a net neutral, then Republicans will just look for another way - gerrymandering, reduced polling places, reduced places to get the state-mandated ID, eliminating early voting - to suppress the vote.
Look at my native North Carolina, especially the still-unresolved House race in NC-9. Thanks to Republicans, North Carolina is a perfect example of cheat 'em 'til you beat 'em.
4
"much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression. "
I'm sorry but if this were true there would be many more Republicans outraged over the *actual* election fraud committed by other Republicans in North Carolina, but instead they'd rather sweep it under the rug and not talk about it.
2
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere"
It isn't sincere at all. The right's so-called "anxiety" about voter fraud arises solely in situations where they lose elections, involves only liberals engaging in it, and is frequently targeted at minorities. Racist, self-serving paranoia isn't a good reason for suppressive voting laws.
3
Voter ID rules are part of a deeper plan to end any semblance of American democracy.
Ross, disenfranchising any individual citizen may not have a big effect on overall turnout. It can still affect outcomes in state and local races, which may be decided by margins so tiny you can count them on your fingers.
Second, suffrage is an individual right that does not hinge on turnout numbers. By your logic, it's no big deal to take away your due process rights, so long as it doesn't affect overall prison population.
Both points are shown in the 2018 Senate race in SD, where Claire McCaskill was the incumbent, voted into office by a tight margin of mainly Native Americans. Most of them had lived and voted for generations on reservations with no street numbers..
So the Republican election board naturally decides that that voter ID's must have...you guessed it... street addresses! McCaskill lost by a small number of votes. Are you telling me that Republicans actually feared that the Native Americans arrived illegally??!!
1
If you are low income you can get a photo ID for free. Just get the ID if you want to vote. Simple.
1
This article is a classic example of cherry picking. Mr. Douthat does offer a few caveats, but the main body of this piece takes it as a given that this one study is unimpeachable and represents a consensus on whether Voter ID laws affect voter turnout. It isn't and it doesn't.
On the other hand, there is a broad consensus that the type of voter fraud targeted by these laws, voter impersonation, is so rare as to be almost entirely negligible. So regardless of whether these laws suppress voter turnout (a question that remains in dispute), they are pointless anyway and have the potential to only do harm by disenfranchising voters. That potential is more than enough reason to despise them.
1
When I challenged GA's voter ID req., my DL had been stolen. GA had no motor veh. off. in Atl., and I had travelled twice to the nearest off., in another c'ty. I sat all day to get a replacement, but my number never came up.
The mayor of Atl. had moved her mother from PA and tried to get her mother a GA ID so that mom could vote for the mayor's re-election. But a prerequisite to getting a GA DL or ID is proof of US citizenship. The mayor's mother had been born at home, and there was no birth certif. The mayor's mother got a US passport because it was easier to get a passport than a GA ID. My co-plaintiffs had registered years ago. Then as now, GA does not issue a photo ID to go along with the regis. My co-plaintiffs did not drive and had no state-issued photo ID. All of us were having trouble voting. The governor belittled my co-plaintiffs' problems voting, calling them (and I don't like to repeat it): "ghetto grandmothers."
Today, the photo ID req. is back, along with a strict-match req. I have my DL, but the name on my DL does not quite match the name in my voter regis., and I'm always at risk for being turned away at the polls. If it's not one thing, it's another.
The number of discouraged voters may be small. But that number, combined with the number discouraged by other voter suppression tactics, is enough to turn a close election. As we saw in the recent GA gubernat. election, we have no effective remedy, esp. after the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.
4
Mr Douthat skips over the real issues here. There is nothing in his arguments, or in his references, that deals with the actual questions posed here. Are the slight, but non-zero effects of Voter ID requirements, on both voter turnout or fraud, small enough to not alter an election result? Which, after all, can be a margin of one vote. After all, relatively small margins of victory in certain States led to Trump’s victory in 2016. Or maybe this effect has to be just small enough to be on a par with other election uncertainties?
Ironically, the woman that Mr Douthat does refer to, might have been protected from her draconian 8 year prison sentence for voter fraud had Voter ID been required.
Voter ID is just one prong in a multifaceted Republican strategy to disenfranchise minority voters, including gerrymandering, purging legitimate voters from the rolls, eliminating polling places in minority neighborhoods, disallowing student ID's for college age voters, ensuring hours long delays in "right to work" States where the consequences can be loss of employment for taking the time needed to vote. America's demographic trends necessitate such actions if white voters are to retain control in an increasingly diverse population. The ultimate aim is virtual apartheid while maintaining the façad of democracy. That's why Mitch McConnell called a proposal to make Election Day a national holiday a Democratic power grab.
3
>>have failed to produce any evidence that there is widespread voter fraud
You are ignoring the case in NC, that is still unfolding, where a GOP campaign machine voted fraudulently up to 100 votes by manipulating absentee ballots. A number of votes that almost exactly matches the difference between the “winning” GOP candidate and the “losing” Democratic candidate.
Clear. Widespread. Voter. Fraud.
Amazingly enough, it wasn’t bussing in out of staters, people “changing clothes and voting 2 or 3 times”. Nope. GOP stuffing the ballot box.
Electronic data base and voter ID may have prevented that, if the process was implemented correctly.
1
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
...is a sentence contradicted by the first sentence of the following paragraph:
"At the same time there’s also no question that a lot of Republican operatives pushing voter ID laws are cynics who expect their party to benefit from lower minority turnout, and a number of professional right-wing partisans — including our president — see an upside in frightening their voters or viewers with the racialized threat of “urban” ballot-stuffing."
I see, Ross.The Republican call for voter ID is not "racist" . . . but merely a "racialized" threat. Thanks for clearing that up with murky (and ridiculous) semantics.
3
Ross Douthat is naïve to suggest many (most?) Republicans favoring voter ID laws are well-intentioned and genuinely concerned with voter fraud. Why? Where is the evidence of rampant voter fraud? It simply does not exit. Moreover, if one were hoping to accomplish substantial voter fraud a more efficient scheme would involve mail-in or absentee ballots (no ID presented) than in-person voting. Call my a cynic, but there is a long, sordid history or Republicans taking measures to suppress votes of folks who do not generally vote Republican. We have seen this movie before.
4
You're basically saying that it's ok to enact laws that deny citizens their constitutional rights, as long as they don't statistically favor one political party over the other.
4
Not a long time ago I visited my French cousin who lives in Rouen. It was the day of national elections and being curious how the French do it I went with him to the polling station. It was a nondescript place, that looked like a school. There were no children it being a Sunday. My cousin produced his government issued ID card and his voting booklet in which casting a vote is recorded (so there is no way to "vote often" as in Chicago, according to the lore). In a few minutes we were on our way to get some coffee. I mentioned to my cousin our raging debate about voter ID. He raised his brows with a smile that said:"Well, what would you expect of the Americans".
So, why we do not join the civilized world. If an ID is required and readily produced for paying with a check for even a roll of toilet paper, then it is OK to require it for voting. It should be given free to all. Having a voting on a Sunday will really permit working people to cast a vote. Our current day of voting is based on the day when the early colonists went to a fair: not so applicable today. The government should be responsible to provide transportation to the polling place to all that need it or have mobile voting booths make rounds of isolated places. That's all: this would really the respect the Americans (and others) have of our system of government.
2
Each year in March, my local Democratic Party campaigns not to get people registered to vote, but also to make sure they understand their voting rights, including what voter identification is legal. For transgender and other people, we point out that they do not have to look like their ID photos.
Every American should automatically be registered to vote when they turn 18 and when they move to a new state. Those who move in-state should be able to change their address online and learn where their new polling place is.
Registration should be open until the day of the election. In SC, it is usually cut off 30 days before each election, for the purposes of voting in that election. That is, a person can register, but will not be eligible to vote in the coming election. Why? Are they less American if they register 29 days before the election?
It seems that some old voting systems update voter rolls very slowly. SC extended registration due to Hurricane Florence in 2018, so people could register through mid-October, about three weeks before the election. There were numerous problems in my county because names had not been added to the voter rolls and others had been purged for no perceivable reason. Sometimes one spouse was purged but the other was not. They lived together and had not moved.
It's time to take Republican power away from the polls. It should be easy for everyone who wants to vote to do so and to do so in a timely manner, without two hour lines.
1
I'm old enough to remember the election of JFK over Nixon back in 1960. I also remember the rage of Republicans who were convinced that the old mayor Daley, of Chicago, delivered the vote in Illinois for Kennedy.
These Republicans went to Nixon and wanted him to protest the vote in Illinois and insist on a recount, which they were convinced would reverse the results and give Nixon the win.
Now all of this, and most people don't seem to remember, that even if Kennedy had NOT won Illinois, he still had enough Electoral College votes to win. He didn't need Illinois.
But, ignoring that, some of Nixon's aids and supporters came to the Illinois Republican Party, asking them to help force a recount.
They were astonished when the Illinois Republicans wanted nothing to do with an investigation or recount in Illinois! "But what about the obvious rampant voter fraud in Cook County?" they asked.
The answer they got was not what they wanted to hear. "If they investigate what the Democrats were doing in Chicago," they were told, "they will also investigate, and find out what we are doing in downstate Illinois!', replied the Illinois Republicans.
I imagine it hasn't changed much since then, and is probably pretty much the same currently in all states, and averages out over the whole country.
Of course this ignores what is probably going on with the Russians and their helpers and enablers in the current Republican Party are doing!
That is what should be investigated!
3
Looking in from outside the key problem is the ideology of ID laws (put together with redistricting). If ID laws don't suppress votes then we have to ask why they are really so popular with the right (I absolutely don't buy the genuine fraud fear - this only works for dummies). The answer has to be riling the base. So here we get to whether getting out the vote is achieved more by negativity (again on the Republican side.
I'd accept Ross is objectively picking low hanging fruit but I'm ken to hear his take on redistricting!
2
I don't believe Ross Douthat. We've seen red states cut the number of polling places in minority areas, shorten timeframes for early voting, purge voter rolls, and other evil steps all intent to reduce minority voting. That's fact. Add GOP gerrymandering to the mix and it further reduces the value of minority votes.
To improve voter participation we need to turn Veteran's Day weekend into a 3-day (Sat, Sun, Mon) celebration of voting, not only to get out the vote in higher numbers but to honor the veterans who served so we could keep the freedom to vote.
7
Let’s accept that neither side is “sincere” in its concerns relating to voter ID—that is, that Democrats oppose ID requirements because they reduce the number of Democratic voters, and Republicans favor them for that same reason. And let’s say we value equally—and wish to balance—maximal voter participation with prevention of voting by ineligible persons. Consider, then, which problem is in fact more prevalent or serious—voter fraud, or low turnout? Evidence of voter fraud is at best sketchy and anecdotal, while there is plenty of evidence that turnouts in the United States are often lower than in other developed countries. Given this picture, why would we want to discourage voter turnout?
7
Ross, your conservative friends may be drinking the Kool-Aid when it comes to voter fraud, but it's not a coincidence that Voter ID laws started gaining traction right after the Supreme Court nullified Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. We know what the purpose of these laws are, and whether they're effective or not is besides the point. I oppose them as an American, not as a Democrat. Same goes for Trump's wall.
5
I just would like to add a concern for drawing a distinction between national interests and local interests. I live in an isolated college town. College students come here from Phoenix and Tucson, hundreds of miles away, and are sometimes shocked to find that they are registered to vote, if at all, back in their parent's home towns. ( During Obama's last Presidential elections, I saw one young man check his watch and announce that he'd take a 3 hour ride in order to vote.) That's fine, and I'll bet he won't do that twice. However, what is not fine is when these young residents of my town vote for expensive projects that I recognize as worthy, but do not feel we can afford. The only solution to that, since I certainly recognize their right to register locally, even if they're living in a dormitory and paying no taxes, is to enforce voter identification. Frankly, most of them won't bother to vote, but that's their decision. Once they're paying taxes somewhere, they will probably register to vote locally.
5
This is a nice sentiment, if the study Douthat cites is correct. But his argument is "skin deep" and clearly meant to make the GOP more appealing in the name of reducing divisiveness. Yes, voter turn outcomes matter. But I suspect that's not the real aim of cynical conservatives who keep pushing voter ID laws. I suspect that their more sinister aims are:
(1) to encourage moderate conservatives to ignore both the evidence and principled arguments about voters' rights. Douthat claims that there are "sincere" conservatives who fear "Chicago" style manipulation. It's hard to take seriously a claim of "sincerity" about those who conflate liberalism with corruption without looking into the facts.
(2) to increase racial animus and fear. This has had more profound effects, I suspect, on voting choices than mere turnout. We all know the results of the last presidential election.
I am disappointed that Mr. Douthat is less concerned about racist propaganda than he is the mere reputation of his party, and his argument about turnout outcomes makes it clear how little he cares about the damage caused the spread of racist thinking.
1
The main point of voter ID may well be to discourage last minute decisions to vote by people on the outskirts of society, the ones who don't have drivers licenses or who move frequently. I'll not venture to quantify such efforts.
In Ohio it is certainly not an issue of identification: a valid United States passport is not a suitable voting ID, but an eleven month utility bill is.
1
Conclusion: The Republican intent to suppress voters via voter ID has failed, so we should look away? However, as others have noted, voter ID laws are just one branch of the voter suppression tree, and I will not be happy until it is pulled out, roots and all.
4
stacy abrams would have won if not for voter supression in her state. Those few statistical points matter a great deal, and given the number of non-voters, who are always a larger pool than repubs and dems together, we need everyone to be required to vote in all elections, fined if they are not, and issued a state-sponsored id.
6
The study cited by Douthat claims that voter ID laws don't appreciably reduce registration or turnout. The study does not, however, address whether people's votes are actually counted. 47 states allow voters without proper ID, voters who have moved but haven't yet updated their registration, and others who do not perfectly fulfill every eligibility requirement, to submit provisional ballots. Many of these ballots may be subsequently rejected; voters can find out if their vote was counted only by contacting the Board of Elections, sometimes no sooner than 21 days after the election. So even if voters turn up and vote, their votes may not be counted, and they may not know about it. Douthat's argument would be more convincing if the study measured how voter ID laws impact actual vote counts.
Beyond this, of course, many Republicans have been quite open about their desire to suppress minority voter turnout. And despite Douthat's attestation to sincere anxiety among conservatives about voter fraud, no one - no one - is campaigning to allow noncitizens to vote. (Extending the safety net to noncitizens, the example Douthat cites in his link, is not the same thing.) Finally, many people face real obstacles to obtaining voter ID, including lost or erroneous documentation, lack of money to get birth certificates replaced or corrected, poor access to transportation, and no leave from work to visit a county clerk's office that is only open for limited hours on weekdays.
2
Ross, You use the term liberals and Democrats interchangeably. In fact there are very few liberal voices in Congress. Most of today's Democrats are similar to what centrist Republicans were 40-60 years ago. Meanwhile the Republicans have gone off the rails, acting more like a street gang (in good suits) that wants to smash and grab rather than govern. Hope that explanation helps, Ross!
1
But even if there are few disenfranchised, it still is somewhat of a problem. Further it is impossible to do a controlled experiment to really see how many are disenfranchised. Surely there are many other simultaneous forms of voter suppression such as gerrymandering that discourages people from bothering to vote and deliberately few voting machines in some minority areas that does the same. Surely ID requirements inconvenience many people and this is done in the name of solving a non problem.
To my way of thinking, the whole problem could be lessened, if not solved, if the Voter ID laws were coupled with a free, state issued ID. This should satisfy those, like myself, who feel that it is not unreasonable to want to know that someone voting is eligible to do so in that district, while also soothing the worries of those who rightfully claim that many people do not have the required ID.
2
So the fact that one of the five main tactics Republicans have used to engineer the vote in their favor doesn't make much difference means we should stop worrying and be happy that Democracy is Safe? Never mind voter roll purges, cutbacks on early and absentee voting, and of course the granddaddy of them all, gerrymandering. This a bit like saying that because that mole on your cheek turned out benign, you don't need to worry about your diabetes, macular degeneration, lung cancer, and heart disease.
5
Voter ID laws are one of many weapons that the minority party in this country is using to perpetuate majority power. One narrow study with frankly biased results cannot negate the fact that the Republican Party has become profoundly anti-democratic. The evidence is everywhere. 330,000 legitimate Georgia voters purged. Native Americans in North Dakota disenfranchised for not having a street address on their IDs (because they don't live on streets!) Tortuously gerrymandered districts drawn up by partisan legislatures. And most egregious of all, partisan Secretaries of State overseeing their own elections! Voting should be natural and easy. Every obstacle to voting is an obstacle to self government.
7
sorry, there is no way that democrats fears will be alleviated by republicans standing down on voter ID. Their campaigns of voter suppression are so obvious and far reaching that I don’t believe they can be trusted, at least for a generation.
I have absolutley no doubt that the senate and gvoernor races in FL and the governors race in GA we won by the republicans ONLY because of voter suppression. These races were too close to claim that voter suppression did not matter. Republicans are stealing elections and getting away with it. They have discovered that brazen stealing, corruption and ant-democratic behavior works for them. It got them a majority on the suppreme court and dozens of congress members through gerrymandering.
4
It isn't enough to remove voter ID laws from the Republican agenda.
Whatever the intent these drives to limit, sort, make exclusive the vote hurt the beating heart of America.
We need to memorialize our belief that voting works best when everybody does it.
We need Motor Voter universally applied; every time someone gets a driver's license they're registered to vote. Better yet, every time someone opens a bank account, pays a utility bill, registers for school, gets a library card, they are registered to vote.
We need voting day to be a holiday. Your banner-bearer McConnell would have us believe making voting day a holiday is a grab for minority voters for the Dems. Bullpucky.
Its a critical change for working and poor of all persuasions, and its way too late coming. We need it.
You can have fancy IDs if you want, but you can't charge for them. Free, secure, valid IDs available to every citizen of voting age, easy and convenient and last a long time.
The rest is easy: let people know weeks in advance where to vote and when. Encourage early, absentee, remote voting.
Time to demand voting algorithms be accessible by those who buy, maintain, depend upon voting machines.
Sorry boys, cost of doing business in an open and responsible America. Nobody's forcing you to sell, but somebody will and we'll buy from them.
No, a candidate may not administer his or her own race, are you crazy or just Conservative?
We'll go from there...
86
@oogada
For 200+ years, a signature was sufficient to prove that the person registered was the person voting.
Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem.
14
Ross, are you being serious? You expect Republicans to back off based on facts? FACTS? They live in a fact free environment dominated by the most egregious liar in American history, maybe in world history.
If Ross were someone to take seriously he would fill every column with in-your-face attacks on Trump and his Republican supporters.
4
"Maybe that’s too optimistic. But even without that upside, the case for standing down is strong. "
Yes, it's too optimistic - because to tolerate any fraudulent voting is inimical to the rule of law, just as toleration of illegal immigration is.
I have been a volunteer elections poll worker in Arizona since 2010, and my state has very reasonable voter ID requirements that I fully enforce at the polls.
3
Ross you should have stopped at conservatives and Republicans need to step back and stand down, problem solved.
5
College town, fake ID is for beer, not elections.
1
Of course, there is also a broad philosophical principle at stake here: if we consider voting to be one of the most basic rights — nay, duties — of American citizenship, then shouldn’t we as a society agree that voting should be made as easy as possible for all citizens?
While Douthat criticizes “...Republican operatives pushing voter ID laws [as] cynics who expect their party to benefit from lower minority turnout...,” he gives a pass to fellow conservatives who fear “....those old Chicago operations...” and “... a left that really does want to extend some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal immigrants.”
The problem is the right bases its actions on warrantless fears about illegal voting — there is no evidence to support their fears — while the left has clear evidence of Republican suppression efforts. In other words, even though Douthat asserts “the rght’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere,” it is based on fake news.
Consider the North Carolina statute struck down by a federal court for cherry picking which government-issued IDs would be accepted at the ballot box — the court found the Republican-led legislature specifically excluded “with almost surgical precision” the forms of IDs most likely to be held by minorities.
Similarly, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said a proposal to make Election Day a holiday, which would make voting easier nationwide, to be a “power grab.”
Seems to me the GOP cynics Douthat decried are in charge.
2
If Mr. Douthat's conservative friends truly believe that voter fraud is a big problem it's probably due to dishonest Republican politicians telling them that it is, not because of any real evidence. It's sort like telling people that Democrats want to extend democratic rights to illegal aliens when the linked article is about giving them access to health care.
4
A beautiful professorial argument, that plays the old pea under a shell game. A bit of distraction, and you will never see how you are being scammed. Care for some (Republican) examples. How about Kansas? Where State election officials moved the Dodge city (60% Hispanic) polls to ...outside the city. The old polling place didn't meet ADA standards; i.e. it never met them until an election where Republicans were widely predicted to not do well in a very Red State.
And then there is Georgia. Where "trained" staff compared signatures on voter registration rolls with the signature on requests for an absentee ballot. A few minor problems. The voter registration signature was by using your finger on a touch screen, where as the one for the absentee ballot was by pen. Does your signature on a touch screen look like the one you produce with a pen? Republicans don't like new voters; i.e. unpredictable voters. They like their old dependable pool. Oh, and are the Georgia "trained" staff that reviews signatures for discrepancies really legally trained? Objective definition of "legally trained" is quite simple. One has taken and passed the (national) handwriting analysis test that allows one to testify in a court of law.
I know when smoke is being blown in my face!
3
Somehow I don't think the specter of the "Chicago machine" looms as large as the specter of the Jim Crow voter suppression antics.
3
The integrity of our voting system should be a non-partisan issue. We should have a system that encourages as many eligible voters as possible to vote, a system that is both fraud resistant and easy for citizens to enter.
Idea:
1. Registration with Social Security (SS) at birth or when taking the citizenship oath.
2. A NATIONAL voter registration database maintained by SS based on the SS#.
3. Teens obtain either a driver's license or state ID card. Public schools facilitate this. This establishes their residency in a state. ID cards are free. Driver's license has the usual fee.
4. Upon turning 18 voters are AUTOMATICALLY registered by SS sending information to Sec. of State of each state and the Sec. of State sending a notice to the newly registered at their addresses on record.
Regardless of the voter registration/fraud issue if African Americans on average suffer from lack of IDs this needs to be rectified. People cannot function successfully in our society without proper ID. This is another issue both parties should be able to get behind unless one of the parties prefers to have Blacks at a major disadvantage. There are lots of other aspects that need addressing. Not enough space here. But the above suggests an approach.
The elderly
former felons
etc.
2
So all the address changes, ones that affect precincts and who are your officials for a nation of 350 million people gets run through SSA? If they have a problem, who do you get on the phone to fix it?
“The study finds that requiring voter identification has no effect on turnout — not overall, and not on “any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”
I stopped reading when I got to this sentence.
1
Voter fraud is a red herring, always has been. Election fraud, however, is very real and the GOP are the perpetrators who are using smoke and mirrors (ie screaming voter fraud) to deflect attention from them.
3
So...no impact on turnout.
But what was the impact on votes COUNTED? Not turnout, not votes cast, but votes counted?
2
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
Paul Weyrich, The Heritage Foundation.
Yeah sure, conservatives championing voter ID are sincerely concerned about fraud.
4
Write an article based on a paper that no one will read because it’s behind a pay wall and present it as proof that there is no problem with Republican voter suppression tactics. Not very convincing.
4
People abuse everything of value.
Voting is just one of the many.
2
I want to put aside who is effected by voter ID laws and focus on whether any qualified voters are effected, be they Democrat or Republican. It is a certainty that far more qualified voters are being effected, by these new voter ID laws than there is any evidence of voter fraud. To institute new voting laws, states should be required to prove that qualified voters are not going to be effected at all. If states want to institute voter ID laws, the onus should fall strictly on them to provide whatever documents are required and allow anyone claiming to be qualified to cast a provisional ballot until the state can prove, to the satisfaction of an unbiased judge, that they are not qualified. Voters should not be forced to battle, uphill, against the state, in order to execute their Constitutional right to vote.
3
If what you are concluding is true, and both sides are overly worried, and even if both sides agree, that doesn't change the facts that ID laws have been and are being passed. You (Ross D.) didn't suggest any solution. Is that because there is none?
Douthat is playing a disingenuous game here.
He claims that Republicans are sincere in their fears of voter fraud, yet he fails to mention that Republican legislators in Wisconsin, Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere have been caught stating (rarely in public) that they were pushing for voter ID laws to stop Democrats from voting.
He claims this study he references is somehow different, yet there have been many studies in the past decade that have demonstrated that voter fraud is a myth.
It's unbelievable that either Douthat or the unnamed Republicans he cites are sincere when there has been ample evidence over many years proving that both voter fraud is rare and Republican legislators want voter ID laws to take out their opposition.
3
While voter ID laws may not result in descernable voter suppression it does discourage some voters and effectively denies these people their right to vote. This might be tolerated if the value achieved, fraud free elections, outweighs the price paid, but the evidence is that it doesn’t. There is virtually no fraud. So we in fact deny the vote to some in order to make some people feel better rather than tell these people that there really is little fraud. (By the way, Russian interference is a real issue but apparently not that important to the Kris Kobachs of the world. What does that say about their deep concern for fraud free elections.) And this doesn’t even deal with motive. Douthat concedes that the cynics would like to suppress votes and see ID laws as a means to this end even if such laws don’t achieve this. Disgusting no matter how you look at it.
1
Interesting. So it’s all just a waste of money, time and effort when there are much bigger issues to deal with.
1
I'm not so sure about Ross's opening premise, which seems to argue that we shouldn't take evidence based approaches if doing so creates winners and losers. Policy is about outcomes, not ideological balance.
Another aside: if Voter ID laws aren't actually effective at suppressing voters, but they are perceived as disrespectful of voters, I heartily encourage Republicans to continue.
2
The problem is folks do not want a national ID. Most countries have one. Americans want freedom from government intrusion. Americans are fine with the internet knowing everything about them as long as they get it for free.
In the USA your driver's license works most of the time as ID.
Not everyone drives. The government could easily issue official IDs to those who need one.
Case closed.
Lets move on to taking care of some real problems
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment outlaws any state action which would "deny..or abridge, in any way" the fundamental right to vote in state and federal elections for "minorities" vested under the Amendment.
Republican efforts to suppress voting by requiring photo identification, proof of citizenship, changing registration rules or locations or polling places or days, times and hours of voting are exactly the type of chicanery the Amendment was passed to stop, and to punish. The language of Section 2 eliminates the "3/5s compromise" which counted slaves as 3/5s of a person for allocating seats in the US House and strips offending states of US House seats and Electors.
Later amendments to the US Constitution added women, seniors and youths, including students as protected classes.
So far FL, AL, NC, and TX have been adjudicated to have used illegal racial animus in redistricting and should be stripped of US House seats and Electors for the 2020 elections. Courts then may supervise the revision of the maps much as was done under the now defunct Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
All states with such voter suppression policies and laws are subject to the penalties of Section 2 and are all so-called "red" states. The states which would benefit from re-allocation of the stripped away seats and Electors would be so-called "blue states."
3
@Timothy Eves Hogan - This is a very interesting comment, all of it. I want to carry the thought further.
"All states with such voter suppression policies and laws are subject to the penalties of Section 2..."
Who has the authority to impose these penalties? Are there any actions Congress can take to encourage this?
The false equivalence rears it's ugly head again....this issue is owned by the Right, the left would have NO issue.
1
Voter ID is only one bullet the Republicans use to affect the vote counts:
Closing polling stations in Democratic districts
De-registering people based on past voting habits
Prohibiting ex-offenders from registering
Playing fast and loose with absentee ballots
It is not who vote that counts; it is who counts the vote. Lenin
2
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
Mr Douthat this statement is just horse hooey. I will never in a million years believe "the rights anxiety about voter fraud is sincere". That right's anxiety is really that black and brown people really will vote. I'll believe "sincere" when pigs fly.
4
Dude, read my lips. “There is no voter fraud”. And voter ID is but one of many republican suppress the vote efforts. Let’s see. Purging registration rolls of random but mostly black and brown Democrats, shortening early voting periods aimed in part at Souls to the Polls, employing the idiotic “exact match” and matching signatures....
Need more? How’s about preventing felons from voting, closing polling locations, not supporting proper election casting and counting technology, not agreeing to same day registration and paper receipt/internet voting.
4
“While states control the voter registration process, some states are so notoriously slipshod in their controls (California, Virginia and New York — all of which have political movements to legalize voting by noncitizens — come to mind) that it would be shocking if many illegals didn't vote.”
See: "Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016"
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/
2
The reason we on the left think that the purpose of voter ID laws is voter suppression is **because** there is no evidence - in spite of years of looking for it - that voter fraud is a problem.
Funny how truth somehow rises to the surface.
Good one Mr. Douthat.
"I have had enough arguments with fellow conservatives on this issue to attest that the specter of those old Chicago operations haunts the right..." Gee, maybe because they get their thinking from Fox News. Don't confuse ignorance with "sincerity" here. So, let's say, and I doubt that will happen (see above), that Republicans drop their fear of voter fraud. They still limit early voting, motor voter, eliminate polls in minority districts, and gerrymander the hell out of red state districts. That is the real problem Ross. Voter ID is tangential to the real problems on the right.
4
The last Presidential election turned on 78,000 votes across three states. It's about 0.5% of the actual voter turnout, and about 0.25% of the eligible voter pool in those three states alone.
So yes, even small differences, concentrated correctly, can make a big difference. And when combined with the various other overwhelmingly Republican efforts to suppress turnout, and to actually commit voting frauds (see NC HoR 2018 elections, the only well documented case of likely voter fraud I am personally aware of BTW) it all matters.
It is only Republicans who are throwing obstacles in the path of voters as a strategy to disenfranchise others. For all of my policy disagreements with them, screwing with the machinery of democracy is actually the worst and most telling.
8
A recent Stanford study found voter fraud in 31 instances..........out of more than a BILLION votes cast! For people like myself who look a bit quizzically at the numbers, that would be 31 out of a thousand million votes cast, or, 10 presidential elections. Other studies have proven the same waste of time and effort, to refute the argument there is voter fraud of ANY significance.
Voter ID laws have one aim: to reduce the number of eligible poor, non-white, disenfranchised voters, who overwhelmingly vote for democrats. Ross, you know this to be true so stop the 1-study distraction. Shame on your wasting column space.
2
Voter ID's were supposed to end voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. Voter suppression by the GOP in plain sight.
1
More false equivalence from the so called conservative side.
Registering to vote should be easier than registering ones car.
Voting should be considered a sacred duty and no attempt should be made to hinder it. Instead it needs to be expanded.
Democrats may want to help immigrants, both legal and not, to better integrate into our society via driver's licenses and other tools but there is no push to get them voter ids.
There is no push from the left to restrict the rights of uneducated yokels from t rump country to vote, although I personally would like to see more civics taught to these people so they might better understand what America really stands for and means.
4
These comments provide a very sad commentary on the state of American civic health.
This conservative pundit's essay offers sound logic and solid empirical information to correct misconceptions of both proponents and opponents of Voter ID; clearly reiterates a plea to stand down and lower the heat about this issue; and explicitly calls on his own 'side' to back off.
Yet nearly all the commenters merely dig in on their existing views and work to re-stoke partisan fires.
Come on, fellow citizens, take a deep breath. Put down your fists, open your ears, and turn on your brains. Take a five-minute break from fighting. Leave the work of dividing America to the paid political consultants and other evil-doers.
3
Amen sister. All the comment sections are like that. Everyone is absolutely convinced their opinions are right therefore no dialogue with the enemy is possible. All the arguments are etched in stone. You say A, I respond B. You say 2, I say 3. I think the conservatives started us on this road and the liberals responded in kind. I don’t think it ends soon or well. Thank God for micro brews.
Sorry boys but voting is a right and the sanctity of other people’s right to vote is not an opinion.
1
Your assertion that much of the anxiety of the right re voter fraud is sincere says it all. That their ignorance is sufficiently high to support this tired shibboleth in the face of measurable facts is even more appalling than the political/cynical explanation.
2
Apparently NOBODY read the article. Every comment here simply recapitulates tired old concerns that were dispelled in a scientifically valid study described by Mr Douthat. If you want to comment on the validity of the study, fine. But to just use up oxygen making Mr Douthat's point that this is a tempest in a teapot .... please stop!
Color me cynical, but isn’t an essay on the supposed nothingburger of voter ID laws just a tad misleading when it comes to the real meat of voter suppression and election fraud?
Set aside the issues many have noted here of limiting the IDs for voting or making IDs almost impossible to get in the first place, or about limiting voting times, closing polling places, purging voting rosters without notice or requiring exact name-matches. What about the far more serious issues of actual election fraud—changing/destroying absentee ballots, destruction of ballots from certain precincts or intentional misreporting of vote tabulations—fraud that almost assuredly occurred in NC and that quite possibly occurred in Georgia (under the auspices of one the very candidates whose votes were being tallied)? And what about the disconnect between reported vote tabulations and exit polling—one that invariably ends up with more votes than anticipated for GOP candidates and oddly occurs only in jurisdictions using voting machines without paper trails?
And what do all these issues—from limitations on IDs, polling times and places, to heavy-handed purging and registration-checking rules, to questionable election integrity—have in common? Every last one of them occurred at the direction of GOP lawmakers or election officials or under their watch. What does that tell you about the Republicans’ commitment not just to Americans’ right to vote but their right to have their votes counted?
2
Voter fraud is nonexistent but it makes a good shiny object for Republican voters to watch while Republicans politicians and their various PACs commit election fraud.
1
Not only should we have voter ID, it is time for a national ID card. Actually past time. Then, every eligible voter would already have a great ID to show when voting. Win-win.
The idea that it's too "hard" or "too expensive" for poor people or minority people to have ID is laughable. What, is their name just written in a family bible somewhere and that's it?! I don't believe it for a second.
If you don't possess a valid ID, there is something wrong with you and you probably should not be voting.
1
I thought that we wanted to be like Denmark? They do require voter ID in Denmark though.
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
Few things are more sincere than racism.
"much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression"
Let's add this Douthat absurdity to other false Republican sacred myths:
. Late-term abortion commonly rips healthy near-term fetuses from wombs in America
. Thousands of murderous criminals swarm over our border daily
. Tax cuts for the wealthy add jobs and middle-class prosperity
. "Religious liberty" is threatened in the US
. Regulations cost jobs and inhibit freedom
. Gun control puts more lives at risk.
There are so many lies, I could go on and on.
4
For the sake of argument, let's assume that these nakedly racist and flagrantly partisan laws have never and will never tip the outcome of any election.
The problem with them isn't just that they might impact elections. In and of themselves they are unacceptable because they are nakedly racist and flagrantly partisan. Getting rid of them for no reason beyond that is clearly justifiable. Whether or not the laws actually achieve their goals only determines if they are merely morally obscene or an active moral catastrophe.
1
Black Americans, having been deprived of the vote for literally centuries, now vote at higher rates than white Americans.
If you want increased voter turnout, the best way to do it (short of offering free beer at the polls) is to tell people that they won't be allowed to vote unless they jump through hoops.
Dan Kravitz
I think that it is obvious that the aim of all voter id laws is to limit the vote of marginaized racial and ethnic populations and to increase the voting power of native born White Americans.
Ross Douthat overlooks the fact that all voter id laws and other forms of voter suppression exist to suppress the vote of those who are impverished and/or not white.
Voter suppression in general, and voter id laws in particular are efforts to promote white supremacy and to discourage and prevent nonwhite American citizens from exercizing their right to vote.
Those who support the voter id laws and other forms of voter suppression are white racists.
1
Ross, you don't mention whether the study has anything to say about the effectiveness of the voter ID push as a means of whipping up the base, both for voting and for fundraising.
Putting Hillary or Nancy in an email is a guaranteed way to whip up conservative anger to raise money - so is invoking the fear of illegal brown rapists and welfare cheats, which is what the voter fraud claim is about.
1
If Douthat thinks the voter ID scam offered to its more Trumpian wing is going to fade into the background, I think he's wrong.
Too many Republican people steeped in the notion that "they" are somehow cheating (regardless of the actual outcome) will denounce and castigate the authors of the study that says "no way" for being unAmerican and unpatriotic.
They know, they just KNOW, that illegals and unregistereds are ruining their country by showing up at a polling place and casting votes.
Sometimes I think Douthat should take a slow car trip through the Midwest and South to experience the absolute conviction that half the people in the country are cowards and traitors. It would open his eyes....
1
Ross, I believe that thousands of voters disenfranchised by Republican voter ID laws would dispute your specious assertion.
Meanwhile in California
California's electoral officials are admitting that they have no idea how many illegals and other non-citizens voted in the last primary, based on the state's motor-voter registration, which has been shown to have registered thousands of non-citizen voters.
See: "Did non-citizens vote last year? California officials still can’t say"
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article223886630.html
First since there is no voter fraud to speak of making voting even marginally harder is outrageous. It is not surprising that it is Republicans and conservatives who push for voter ID laws given they are the racists of American elections and they hope to tamp down the vote of would be Democrats. That it doesn't work is further evidence that they aren't too smart.
So, studies have also shown that there is very little voting fraud of the kind where a non-eligible person votes. We are learning of other serious fraud, however - lost ballots, foreign influence, and worst - all of the domestic political lying.
But, valid voter has not been a big problem.
Furthermore, only a biased moran, would deny that Republicans are "smartly" (and fascisticaly) engage in acquiring whatever advantage they can, by hook or by crook. They have too, because their true beliefs are not shared by the majority.
Christianity, for instance, is corrupted with nationalistic republicanism - or, really, fascist thinking.
"....much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression." Yes the right has "sincere" beliefs not used as cynical covers.
To name a few: Sincere belief that climate change is not occurring. Sincere belief that immigrants are all rapists and murders. Sincere belief that liberals are the enemy. Sincere belief that trickle-down economics work. Sincere belief .....
Fill in the blank. Being sincere does not make it true or at times even rational.
1
In the 1997 mayor's race in Annapolis, the City's Public Information Officer was at the polling place near his home when buses rolled in from nearby housing projects. As passengers got off the bus, they were given a small piece of paper with a name and address on it, and then read from the paper when requesting "their" ballot.
The PIO called a candidate whom he supported and asked if he would like the "voters" challenged, but the candidate said "no." He was going to with the primary and did not want to be called a racists as he did.
Because of this incident, Annapolis passed a Voter ID law. Four years later, Democrats rallied the black vote with claims of Jim Crow and Poll taxes. Oddly, despite voter ID, black turnout was higher than ever.
Not coincidentally, the "civil rights" leader who organized the buses to the polls has been found with stacks of absentee ballots with the same signatures at subsequent elections, and conveniently gets political appointments from victorious democrats (despite his extensive criminal record).
But keep the mantra up that there is no such thing as voter fraud.
In Canada we need a photo ID to vote. But here’s the catch: as of age 16 everyone already has one, regardless —it’s called a provincial health care card, which is free and reissued every 2 years.
So, simple solution: pass universal health care for Dems with the photo ID law for Reps. Win win!
1
You mean, unless it’s YOUR vote that gets eliminated. YOUR registration that’s dropped “by accident” along with a bunch of other people who have the same skin color or zip code you do. Or unless it matters to you that ALL citizens get the right to vote without the hassle or challenges the majority avoids.
Republicans reacting to facts? Hoo boy, that's a good one!
1
About par for course for Ross, isn't it? Out here in the real world one person disenfranchised is one person too many and reason enough to call out the liars.
"when some sententious centrist talks about ending partisan polarization and just coming up with “solutions” based on “data” or “studies” or “expert consensus,” the appropriate response is to roll your eyes"
And there you have it folks: The business model of Fox News. Funny thing about ignoring facts and those "liberal" experts. It always comes back to bite you in the end.
1
R Douthat points out that liberals suspect that voter ID laws are a cynical attempt by the right to tamp down turnout. And he concedes that in some percentage of cases this is true. He also asserts that in many cases the laws are the result of fears that are genuinely held by some righties that without these laws the left will overrun the ballot box with illegal votes.
Okay, if these Rs genuinely believe that, and aren't just being cynical, then they are just being stupid. Because whether they fear it or not, ballot box fraud basically doesn't exist.
Once again, even if they're being genuine about it (a giant "if") the Rs are making policy based on misinformation, racial bias, ignorance and, basically, superstition.
I am trying to grasp the message here. It may be difficult as my higher education did not include a sufficient amount of scholasticism. Photo ID requirements, according to the study referenced, do not cause a statistically significant decrease in voting turnout. However, the ID requirement addresses a non-existent problem, large numbers of illegal votes cast. But the requirements make those who believe in the existence of mass voting fraud more comfortable, because they sincerely believe that "Chicago" style or "big city machine politics" corruption is rampant in districts controlled by Democrats. Do Republicans, including their new members gained after the Goldwater revolution and the Nixon "southern strategy," never acknowledge and consider the historic suppression of Black voting that occurred in both the former slave states and conservative states? Do Democrats, including their newer adherents who are the heirs of the post-Civil War Radical Republican/Abolitionist movement to protect Black civil rights, not sincerely believe that Republican voting laws are part of a vote suppression effort? Did Douthat intend to address at another time the other vote regulation policies that reduce voting access such as reduced polling places, increased document requirements, increased re-registration requirements, Gerrymandering, and others? Why do conservatives like to reduce red-tape and inconvenience for corporations but increase it for individuals seeking to vote?
2
Thank you, Mr. Douthat, for writing this piece. The evidence he presents — that voter fraud is a myth, and that voter ID laws do not affect turnout — have been clear for some time.
However, even if retristictive voter ID laws do not significantly affect turnout, they still disenfranchise individual voters. It is a matter of principle, not just who benefits from those extra votes.
Numerous studies have shown that fraud is almost non-existent, and falsely claiming that it’s rampant corrodes our democracy. We should therefore err on the side of lax voter ID laws, not strict ones.
Finally, some statute of limitations has to be called on when a party invokes the specter of some long-ago malfeasance. The Chicago machine stopped being a thing sixty years ago. You don’t get to claim you’re still not over it.
1
If no id is required to vote, then the id requirement for welfare should be removed also. You are speaking of the same demographic.
I doubt that many of us "leftists" are opposed to requiring a
voter ID. The issue remains and is exacerbated by communities that make it difficult if not impossible for individuals to obtain the acceptable form of ID and to vote. If we as a nation were really serious about this, we could institute procedures at a national level to ensure that every eligible person receives a free voter ID with little to no effort on their part. Then with controls for and procedures to expand opportunities for online, mail-in, or in-person voting, every body that wants to vote could easily do so. We have a long way to go.
If all this is true, why have Republicans consistently fought motor-voter laws, where registration is simply done when obtaining a driver's license? Why did they delegitimize registrations obtained by authorized officials going to people's homes to register them? I know, I helped many people register in Florida in 2008. Why were many of these people told they could not register if they just moved to Florida and did not yet have a FL driver's license? Voter suppression is real and pervasive, particularly in the South.
6
"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down"--Paul Weyrich, 1980.
Nothing has changed. Republicans still don't want people to vote. That's because they don't represent the people who vote; they represent the people who shovel money at them. And who would that be? Oh, right, that would be the Kochs, Adelsons, DeVos, etc.
7
Hold the applause, Ross. Voter suppression, whatever its guise, is a long game. Here's what the authors wrote about their own study:
"Because states adopted strict ID laws only 2 to 12 years ago, our results should be interpreted with caution: we find negative participation effects neither in the first election after the adoption of the laws nor in following ones, but cannot rule out that such effects will arise in the future."
https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/STRICT%20ID%20LAWS%20DON'T%20STOP%20VOTERS%20%20WP%2025522_a23ab54e-2f28-439e-bfa9-f571816f1de0.pdf
Furthermore, effects that don't show up as statistically significant may nevertheless make all the difference in close elections, as with the 2016 presidential election in which a few states were decided by a handful of votes per precinct.
Since the Jim Crow era came to an end, the politcal right has schemed to protect its power in the face of changing demographics. In 1980, Paul Weyrich said: “I don’t want everybody to vote. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
6
How about trading agreements on Constitutional rights.
In exchange for voter ID, Republicans agree to complete electronic gun registration and traceability (and don't tell me there aren't loopholes), with photo ID's kept on government computers. Deal?
4
The problem here is in Wisconsin is that Department of Motor Vehicles employees were never given proper training about the law. I don't know if this was a result of the Walker administration not fully thinking this through, or making the law vague on purpose.
I moved my mother up to Wisconsin from Florida. She was legally blind and was no longer driving, so the trip to the DMV was for an ID given the strong sense of civic duty around voting.
It took three trips to the DMV, being different information each time, before she got the ID -- after she died.
Considering the lack of evidence of wide-spread voter fraud, a citizen shouldn't have to waste a second or a dollar in order to obtain an ID.
That's the real voting fraud. The severity of laws against voting fraudulently sufficiently does the job of curbing illegal voting.
But my mother did attain one measure of civic pride. She made it on the ACLU law suit at 89 against Wisconsin's voter ID as a plaintiff.
12
Sorry Ross "it really doesn't matter" is not an argument; it's an opinion. Election fraud comes in many different ways however fraud at the voter booth is just as important as it is anywhere. Whether it impacts the election outcome or not is clearly a leading issue- but prevention of election fraud should be a priority for everyone.;
2
Trump's entire Presidency and the policies of right wing Republicans are based on myths - the myth of rampant voter ID fraud, the myth of rampant crime by illegal immigrants, the myth of a border crisis, the myth of global warming denial, the myth of fake news, the myth of partisan investigations etc. If Trump and right wing Republicans give up their myths what else do they have left?
13
Huh? One side trying to suppress and the other trying to prevent this, and you say just lay off? Again, there is no equivalency between these actions, nor the parties involved.
Really a nonsensical article that, it could be argued, is designed to tell Democrats to stand down and let Republicans continue their bad faith dealings. Not buying this at all.
8
Someone reading this column might almost believe that Douthat is making a reasonable, (somewhat) nonpartisan argument here. That is, until you get to the third paragraph and see that it is just a disingenuous ploy by a member of the professional Republican Commentariat to reframe Republican attempts at voter suppression as based solely on voter ID laws. Hanging his argument on a working paper, neither peer reviewed nor accepted for publication in a respected journal, Douthat’s purpose is to provide cover for other Republican strategies to suppress minority votes, which the Right fears will go to Democrats. Republican Secretaries of State refusing to process voter registration forms coming from majority minority districts, closing down almost all polling places in minority districts while leaving those in white Republican areas open, preferentially removing minorities from voter roles on various pretexts, and extremely creative gerrymandering are also tactics in the Right’s voter suppression program. I expect that all Republican Party propaganda repeater outlets, Fox, Limbaugh. etc., will be parroting this feat of legerdemain, “Poof! And Republican voter suppression is gone!”, every hour on the hour for at least the next twenty four hours, unless another, newer, piece of propaganda comes along.
8
Voter ID is all about maintaining conservative, white dominance in the States that are changing demographically and at the National Level.
There are no two ways about that. Any article which does not start on that premise is fraudulent.
3
Justifying anti-democracy efforts with a statistical low impact is no justification at all. When you're the one who can't vote because the Republican Party has targeted you, the impact is total.
6
You’re placing, it would seem, absolute confidence in one single social science study. That’s quite a leap of faith, Ross. Yet you make no mention as to why we should have such faith in a solitary study. Wouldn’t it be prudent to wait and see what further studies reveal?
It seems to me that the burden of proof is on conservatives to show how and in what ways these ID requirements AREN’T discriminatory and limiting. Regardless, the stakes involved are too high, too important for a single social scientific study to determine.
5
I don't get the angst. We need a photo ID to get in an airplane, cash a check, drive a car, or buy a beer. There are plenty of other times we must prove our identity. It's ridiculous to say it's "suppression" to require an ID to vote.
49
@DanP
Here in NJ we require 'six points' to get a drivers' license with picture. What if...I am old...don't drive and have lost my birth cert. and other documentation that would otherwise qualify as validation of my citizenship? Should I lose my vote, too?
The simple answer is to 'grand-father' voters...but the GOP would rather have the fight than propose legislation that makes sense.
43
@DanP
"It's ridiculous to say it's "suppression" to require an ID to vote."
No, you don't get it. The thing about voter ID is that typically some photo IDs are more equal than others; a gun license versus a student ID, for example.
34
@mancuroc
You mean a CCL that's issued by a state agency using a controlled verified process to prevent forgeries, vs a student ID which isn't?
4
Ross Douthat conveniently omits the word "photo" in his justification for photo ID laws to vote passed in virtually only Republican controlled states.
Many young voting age Americans who are poor, don't have a driver's license which is most prevalent form of photo ID.
Even though the voting age population is increasing, Douthat unknowingly makes the case against photo IDs by writing that voter turnout has 'remained stable" which is the same as not increased.
All studies have shown that voter fraud is a solution in search of a problem. The photo ID requirements and other voter suppression laws is a desperate attempt of Republicans to hold on to power while clinging to unpopular, special interest dogma.
5
I fail to understand why citizens cannot obtain proper ID's to vote. Been a voter the past 60 yrs. and have always carried any form of identification required to vote. Voter ID card, driver license, a bunch of other plastic cards identifying me. Fairly simple in my book. At my age I'm still carded to buy a bottle of wine at a very popular grocery store here in Loudon county Virginia. Slightly annoying but I can live with. Hey, buying a good bottle of wine for dinner almost as important in my life as voting!
1
I have voted for over 20 years in two different states. I have never been given a voter ID card or been required to show any ID when voting.
Not everyone drives, so no need for a driver’s license. Getting a picture ID involves a fee and possibly taking a day off from work. Why make it more complicated to vote to solve a problem that essentially doesn’t exist?
2
How do you cash a check, open a bank or credit account, rent a car, buy a phone, get a mortgage or a lease, take any transportation besides a non-Uber/Lyft cab, go to school, get a pet from a shelter, collect social security, pay a medical bill, get a prescription filled? The list goes on and on. Maybe that legendary 90 year old nun living in a cloister might not do any of these things, but everybody else does.
Studies showing that the crime rate among illegal immigrants is lower than that of the general population hasn’t stopped the right from continuing to engage in a polarized debate about illegal immigration so why would you expect the facts about the extent of voter ID fraud to end the polarized debate on that subject?
2
I assume you mean crimes besides being in the country illegally. On that illegally in nation thing, it is 100%. That is a very high crime rate.
Sadly, using studies or other fact based information in sensible argument seems to have zero impact on what has become the radical right party which calls itself Republican. The leader of that party has no qualms about ignoring or actually lying about reality.
3
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
Why, sir, do Republicans in many red states manipulate poll locations and close poll locations so that some voters must spend hours waiting in line to cast their ballot?
Why not make Columbus Day, a recognized national holiday AND voting day so that hourly workers can cast a ballot without the fear of getting fired from their job for having to wait in line at the polls for three hours?
6
@PG
Sounds like a reasonable solution, doesn't it ? Anyone can offer a reasonable solution to get more people to vote, but that is not the desire of the republican party.
This is not JUST an ID issue. It is a suppression issue of ''all of the above''. First the state may require you to get an ID (or two, or three) that only they offer, through offices that are hard to reach and at inhospitable times. (any charge whatsoever it relation to voting is deemed a poll tax and unconstitutional, but they do it anyways)
The polling stations are shut down, and they are moved around with little notice. They are being put away from bus routes, where people have to walk along dangerous highways to get there. They are opening them during working hours for many, and that is a cost to voting as well. The districts are being more and more gerrymandered so that votes do not matter.
Then there are the continuous purges of voting rolls in the tens of thousands, for such discrepancies as a misplaced letter or comma.
When more people vote, Liberals generally win. OF COURSE republicans don't want that.
1
@PG
Sounds like a reasonable solution, doesn't it ? Anyone can offer a reasonable solution to get more people to vote, but that is not the desire of those controlling red states.
This is not JUST an ID issue. It is a suppression issue of ''all of the above''. First the state may require you to get an ID (or two, or three) that only they offer, through offices that are hard to reach and at inhospitable times. (any charge whatsoever it relation to voting is deemed a poll tax and unconstitutional, but they do it anyways)
The polling stations are shut down, and they are moved around with little notice. They are being put away from bus routes, where people have to walk along dangerous highways to get there. They are opening them during working hours for many, and that is a cost to voting as well. The districts are being more and more gerrymandered so that votes do not matter.
Then there are the continuous purges of voting rolls in the tens of thousands, for such discrepancies as a misplaced letter or comma.
When more people vote, Liberals generally win. OF COURSE some don't want that.
1
@PG
Sounds like a reasonable solution, doesn't it ? Anyone can offer a reasonable solution to get more people to vote, but that is not the desire of those controlling red states.
This is not JUST an ID issue. It is a suppression issue of ''all of the above''. First the state may require you to get an ID (or two, or three) that only they offer, through offices that are hard to reach and at inhospitable times. (any charge whatsoever it relation to voting is deemed a poll tax and unconstitutional, but they do it anyways)
The polling stations are shut down, and they are moved around with little notice. They are being put away from bus routes, where people have to walk along dangerous highways to get there. They are opening them during working hours for many, and that is a cost to voting as well. The districts are being more and more gerrymandered so that votes do not matter.
Then there are the continuous purges of voting rolls in the tens of thousands, for such discrepancies as a misplaced letter or comma.
When more people vote we ALL win.
1
continued,
3) One of the most telling phrases from the literature review is given no space: "the current wave of voter ID legislation ... is merely history repeated...". Amen. From the original U.S. and constitution and state ones (which denied voting to women, slaves, non-property owners) through to the poll tax and the white power that was used to turn away potential black voters even past the 1960s, and continuing to the present where proof of citizenship has now been championed as an acceptable requirement (here's looking at you, KS and MO), haven't we had enough of any kind of voter suppression?
I do appreciate RD's bottom line: the GOP started this mess; it's theirs to stop. But it's no excuse for obscuring other truths.
4
It would taken a column longer than the original to untangle all of Douthat's misstatements and obfuscations. As one who has actually read the study quoted (it's behind a significant monetary paywall), let me list just 3.
1) The study does NOT claim that voter IDs have little effect on turnout; it suggests an equally viable alternative conclusion: the laws are too new to make such a conclusion. (It's even in the freely-readable abstract.)
2) The last sentence of RD's 5th paragraph claims: "The study finds that requiring voter identification has no effect on turnout - not overall and not an "any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation." So now he goes to a totally different study because the main one his article is based on says exactly the OPPOSITE: "existing research clearly establishes the plausibility of the hypothesis that strict voter identification laws might lower turnout, and do so more among some groups than others. Not all registered voters possess forms of ID that would qualify under the strict laws." Excellent bait and switch, RD.
9
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression." This statement suggests the right's "anxiety" is conscious. It is not. It is rooted in why they think the way they do. How is that? They inherited from evolution more fear in their DNA than anyone else on the political spectrum. Thus it is unconscious, automatic "thinking". The most common symptom is the sense that everyone is out to get you and everyone is out to get conservatives. It is totally unconscious and irrational since it was in its heyday in caveman days, but mostly obsolete in today's world.
2
Great job, Ross.
Now you have given the GOP incentive to invent even more absurd hoops for "those people" to jump through to get registered and exercise their constitutional right, and to create even a more ludicrous pretexts to energize their gullible base to turn out...
Perhaps there is a study out there that measures how even smart people underestimate the gargantuan GOP cynicism that actually undergirds the intractable problems to which Ross alludes?
4
Good to know that at least one study provides indication that concerted Democratic efforts to counter voter ID vote suppression were sufficiently successful to result in little net change, for net outcomes are all such a study can measure. That hardly means that racial vote suppression efforts are inconsequential, that we can leave off worrying about them, mitigating their effects, or fighting to get them overturned or rescinded. If I successfully shield my head, it doesn't mean you didn't strike at it or that your next blow won't land.
4
I would feel much better about the voter ID subject if the ID's required were free and easy to obtain. No one should have to pay to vote.
8
@Jim
Any cost whatsoever initiated by the state in relation to voting is deemed a ''poll tax'' - it is also unconstitutional.
When the Supreme Court (far right dominated) struck down parts of the Voting Rights' Act, it essentially opened the door for many of these states to revert back to before 1965 levels. (of voter suppression) In fact, many states initiated the changes moments after the decision. They were just waiting to oppress.
I would go a few steps further, by making it mandatory to vote (via paper ballot and via mail - with a national holiday). Whenever anyone applied for any type of ID, then they would be automatically registered to vote.
Just a thought.
3
You're right, too optimistic. Why would empirical evidence inform anyone's political passions in this particular instance?
Of course the left has been presenting good evidence for years that the voter fraud "problem" is mostly fiction. But I've always suspected that the other claim, the minority disenfranchisement, has been at least exaggerated. On the other hand, the GOP seems to be acting on the belief it will have this effect (Cynically, I never thought very many of them were genuinely concerned about voter fraud). But part of me says, whichever way it may bias turnout, that if someone can't meed reasonable requirements to vote it's their own lookout. Of course, I've never had to wait three hours to vote, or take unpaid leave from work to get registered.
Unfortunately, I don't think just forgetting about it and moving on is something that's going to happen as a result of one study.
Here’s the short answer. Republicans have demonstrated by a long history of policy choices, as well as explicit statements in some cases, that they are willing to cheat to win elections. This includes legislation that, to quote one district court, is “surgically targeted” to suppress minority votes.
There is no evidence of ID-related voter fraud. Mr. Douthit is about 20 years behind the times if he is just figuring this out.
So the burden of proof is on the GOP, the party that has shown that winning is more important to them than protecting our most cherished traditions
7
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere..."
That might have been true in years past. I don't believe it's true today. In the recent election in Georgia, for example, there was no reason to reduce the number of polling stations in underprivileged neighborhoods (as did happen) except to make it harder for the people who lived there to vote. It should never take someone 5 hours to vote.
Conversely, I don't think the left is pushing for non-citizens to have the right to vote. Voting is a privilege that goes along with citizenship - whatever the socioeconomic level you belong to, or political sympathies you might have. ID is ok, but subliminally intimidating people not to vote, or making it just physically harder for them to do so, is not.
7
Sorry Ross, voter ID laws are only 1 of a many pronged strategy to reduce the number of Democrat leaning votes. Meanwhile as you acknowledge the entirety of the GOP argument, ID fraud, is a non issue.
This is not "bothsideserism", this is not a nothing burger, and trying to pitch it as voter ID vs fraud while ignoring gerrymandering, voter roll purges, limits to polling places and time, and other forms of voter suppression shows that you are cherrypicking your data to form a self serving argument that is not based in reality.
7
I've never quite gotten the idea of ID requirement as an issue. It makes sense. After all, if one has to show ID to purchase alcohol, board an airplane, pick up controlled-substance pharmaceuticals at the pharmacy, to attest that you are who you claim to be when exercising one's franchise does not seem any more of an undue requirement than it already is for these other societal transactions.
2
Many, many people simply do not have the often narrowly prescribed identification card. Not everyone has a concealed carry permit.
4
Here's a prediction: If this study holds up, Republicans will stop trying to impose the ID laws, and shift to other ways to depress voter turnout.
Let's see!
1
I believe that if you have to take off work and spend more than one hour in getting a voter id that it does constitute a poll tax and should be declared unconstitutional no matter what Justice Scalia wrote.
7
Here's what I've always suspected: if a comprehensive, fully-funded voter ID effort could be rolled out, the net result would be heavily skewed in favor of democrats. It might end up being a nail in the coffin for Republicans in several states.
The voter-suppression numbers as a result of voter-ID requirements always seemed off to me. I think they are accurate counts of *potentially suppressed votes, however a huge % of those potential votes never happen anyway. 400,000 suppressed votes in Florida? Hard to swallow, hard to not notice that many people being turned away at the polls. The anecdotal evidence would be overwhelming, the voter stories would flood the airwaves for weeks afterward.
No - *real, funded, staffed voter ID roll out would stir up voters who never bothered before - the assurance, the pride that someone contacted them and cared enough to get them ID to vote - a gift, in the end, to Democrats.
"Sententious." Thanks for the new word, Ross. You model it here, for first you dismiss experts and academic studies as irrelevant to resolving discord and then use one to resolve the voter ID issue to your own satisfaction. Not cool.
3
The studies are correct, the conclusion is incorrect. Even if there's a minimum voter suppression effect, that can affect an election where the smallest margin counts. These laws solve no real problems, but may cause small voting suppression effects. They should be dismantled.
3
@Lolita
Not to mention the unacceptable outcome of denying, or even appearing to deny, anyone their right to vote.
2
Correct. He said it would only affect the tightest races. Oh, you mean like the one in 2016 where an fool was elected to office by only about 120,000 votes over a few states, less than 1%...like that one?
1
Isn't your conclusion that voter fraud is non-existent or insignificant sufficient reason for you to call for an end to voter ID laws? What difference does it make whether or not you believe they disenfranchise voters? Can someone admit they are wrong only when the other side can be shown to be wrong about something too?
1
If there is a critical mass of Republican decision-makers operating in good faith, they will take your advice.
We can each decide for ourselves whether to hold our breath for that.
The argument is almost compelling... then you realize you are dealing with a conservative argument. Ross is arguing both sides should do nothing. There is no problem. Think about that. That is a very conservative argument.
Personally, I'm inclined to suggest there are better alternatives to doing nothing. Alternatives which don't inflame an arguably pointless debate over voter ID laws.
I happen to live in a very Red state. Most of the state has universal mail-in ballots. You can register through the DMV website. The process takes less than 5 minutes. They'll even send you a mailer asking about your primary preference. There are still polling stations for those who wish to vote in person. However, the process is so simple, why would you travel to vote?
We could make the process even easier by walking high school kids through the process during school. We teach drivers ed. Why can't we spend a class covering voter registration?
Here's the thing: Douthat is asking everyone to stand down when we should be stepping up. Every US citizen 18 years or older is entitled to vote. The question of whether they will vote or not should be a non-issue. For the world's first democracy, our voter turnout should be in the high-80s or more. Fraud and suppression are marginal concerns compared to this one singular failure.
Both sides need to step up
3
What is really being lost in all the noise is the concept that a person's word is their bond.
For 200 years a person voted because they swore they were eligible to. If you made that allegiance, you were good to go and everyone accepted it. We take you at your word.
The demand for adjudicated identity verification for financial transactions, makes sense in that many people can be tempted, and fail in their honesty, when wealth is at issue.
But voting is different. A person has nothing to personally gain from voting but a sense of accomplishment. The step imposed that requires an address be provided, to ensure that you were voting where you should, effectively solved the problem of multiple voting.
2
Maybe not in Salem. In Dallas, we have “walking around money” that candidates take a Sgt. Schultz attitude toward it. Then we had the riot that broke out at a caucus when a candidate that gave money to voters to vote for him, wanted it back when party chair found out and canceled the caucus. In Dallas it is legal to “collect” signed and sealed absentee ballots, the supposed heinous act that has NC in an uproar. Getting up close and personal with elections makes watching hot dogs being made look like high tea at Buckingham Palace.
@Michael Blazin
In Oregon 100% of voting is vote by mail. Drop boxes are available in many places for folks that did not mail early enough, because they MUST be received by 8pm election day.
Because everyone receives their ballot by mail, not just absentees, it becomes much more difficult to focus on absentees to generate fraud. No caucuses either.
Our elections are very clean.
That "...voting in America would rattle along basically unchanged" pretty much reveals the Douthat Bais. Unchanged, rattling voting in America is a good thing, Ross? Good for whom? Why, good for all those who would continue to try to limit voting in the first place.
I'm looking at you, Ross.
2
For an necessary law (as ably described by this piece) to disenfranchise one voter is wrong, tens of thousands is a crime. Mr Douthat doesn't mind telling us republicans consider voting a privilege to be granted by them when convenient. Thanks for reaffirming my vote for freedom, Ross.
2
So this is the point Ross is missing...the push for voter id laws is motivated by the racist desire to limit turnout and to place roadblocks in the way of the poorest sector of society on the way to the polls. Several GOP politicians have been caught on tape bragging exactly about their motivation. Furthermore, Ross omits the reality that in person voter fraud is rare...and is actually a ridiculously impractical way to influence an election. The opposition to such laws
is grounded in the reasonable belief that voting should be encouraged and not limited by those who intend to limit exercise of the franchise (even if ineffectively).
3
One should not look at the voter ID requirement as a tool for preventing voter fraud. I think that it might be a useful litmus test of whether a potential voter should qualify to vote. I know that this is controversial because of the clearly discriminatory and racist Jim Crow laws (like reading tests and so on), but the point here is not to exclude a certain group. It is rather a question of motivation and consciousness. I do not see why someone who does not even bother to get an ID should vote? Do we want such a person to have an equal say to an engaged and informed citizen?
1
Good studies have shown that in Wisconsin Democrats have to get +/- 7% more votes to achieve an equal number of seats as Republicans in the state legislature. The systematic distortion of the electoral system in favor of Republicans in Wisconsin took many forms, from gerrymandering to voting restrictions. Voter ID is only part of the problem. And attacks on voting rights is still a problem, especially after the gutting of the Voter Rights Act of 1965 enabled states to start new ways to control who votes (which they did immediately despite Chief Justice Roberts' specious claim that the problems no longer existed). Every vote should have the same value, but Republicans (especially) have been putting their thumbs on the scale in every way they can.
3
All in all, a rather dishonest discussion of voter suppression. It seems that when it comes to political issues, Ross's morality is quite flexible and adaptable to the party line.
4
Voter ID, like border control, is a fake issue used by politicians to arouse their constituencies. Their rhetoric obscures the truth. The truth is a that huge majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, see no problem with a voter ID requirement at the polling place, and almost no one advocates open borders. Can't we move on to the real issues?
1
The difference of course is that multiple studies have shown there ARE turnout issues from these laws, and at the same time, ZERO studies and have proven there is rampant voter fraud. Why is it that the second a new study come out that seems to take the middle ground, does the nearly-pathologically "centrist and reasonable" Douthat start talking about it? Why ignore all the evidence from before, just so you can neuter the other side while not looking like one of the other raging loons who ignore Reality?
5
We have to show photographic ids to get onto planes. We have to show the same sort of ids to enter some government buildings. We're asked to sign in and provide ids when we go on interviews at places where there is security. Most of the time the id we use is a driver's license with a picture of us on it. If a person doesn't have a driver's license the state usually issues another photographic id because of how often we are required to have one nowadays.
Some of the problems with government issued ids are the costs. If we are going to require them they should not cost more than a minimal amount of money. While there isn't voter fraud, there is identity theft, underage drinking and purchasing of alcohol, and people pretending to be someone else. We do need some form of national id in America. It is time that we stopped objecting and provided people with an official id that can be used almost everywhere.
It's also time that the Supreme Court stepped in to end gerrymandering. This practice, no matter who does it, deprives people of representation. It leads to ridiculous results all because one party or the other wants to stay in power. As for the constant allegations about illegal immigrants voting or immigrants voting; for the most part they don't. Unfortunately there are conservatives who prefer to misdirect in order to avoid dealing with real problems in America. It's so much easier to blame immigrants of all types rather than find a solution.
2
Dear Ross,
In a well functioning democracy no one should need an ID to vote, national voting days at least should be holidays so that everyone can vote conveniently, transportation to polling places should be free, and everything should be done to insure the biggest possible turnout. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.
1
Ross is correct that the real voter fraud is not about ID it has a lot more to do with the systematic voter disenfranchisement. We now seem to see it every 4 to 8 years in South Florida last year in Georgia and the Carolina's and pretty much any State were the elections are run by partisan hacks. Or if you want to write on another electoral problem give us a conservatives argument on why were should keep the Electoral College? If you want to talk about the problems we have with our elections than take on the problem we can all see. You can do better Mr. Douthat.
3
@Edwin Cohen
Only 20 states voted for Clinton. The total vote difference was 2.1%. Clinton did not even have the largest % margin in popular vote total to lose the election(Andrew Jackson had 10% more popular vote while Samuel Tilden had 3%). I would be happy to do away with electoral college. The winner should be the person that wins the most states/territories. Each state/territory counts as one. How about that? This is precisely why there is an Electoral College.
Canada has had strict voter ID policy as far as i have been a voter. Election tampering has never been an animating political issue as far as I'm aware (although corruption and ballot stuffing has occurred at the level of electing party leadership and positions, this not under the oversight of the federal government). America is far more populous, with many more States and counties regulating themselves. The lack of federal oversight and one set of rules leaves open the argument of partiality and prejudice. Ross touches on but doesn't emphasize on the underlying race anxieties (which is the core of the issue, extending even to the immigration debate). The faults and wounds are there, America continues to be a race conscious nation because they are unhealed and, contrary to what many white liberals believe, there are no quick fixes like affirmative action and meritocracy. Colonialism and slavery was a multigenerational trauma that will take many generations to repair.
Please forgive a second comment, but I was called away before I finished my first. Mr. Douthat acknowledges that "there is more to the voting-rights debate than just voter ID laws", but my point is that all of the ploys used to suppress the vote are used almost exclusively by Republicans. Gerrymandering is a little bipartisan, but Democrats don't get close on either frequency or severity. In addition to calling people felons--used in more state than just Florida--and refusing or losing registrations (Georgia for sure). We have stealing absentee ballots (NC), refusing to accept student IDs--Virginia passes on that, Texas not--closing polling places where your targeted voters live, and limiting early voting. All of these tactics have been used by Republicans; I am not aware of any Democratic use. Finally, we must question the studies used to dismiss the impact of voter ID requirements. If you don't show up to vote because you know you don't have the required ID, do you count as suppressed? Counting non-events is tricky.
5
My problem with voter ID is this; voting is a right not a privilege. To me that means that if a state wants to require voter ID then the entire burden of providing voter ID to anyone who request it should on the state. That there is an attempt at voter suppression should be obvious to anyone. In Wisconsin, where a government issued ID is required for voting the state accepts drivers's licenses but not student ID's issued to students at the University of Wisconsin by the state.
3
I have never read a voter ID fraud scenario that passes the common sense test. In New Jersey, at least, a voter must know his or her address and name, appear at the correct polling place, go to the correct ward table and then sign that name on the official register opposite a photocopy of the original registration signature before receiving a pass to enter the voting booth. Multiple IDs are required only at the original registration, typically at the DMV. The critical bit of information required for fraud? That the specific legal voter has not already voted. Was the legal voter murdered or abducted, at work, a late riser? And if the legal voter did appear later the fraud would be immediately discovered. Conceivably the illegal voter might be a family member voting on behalf of an incapacitated relative. But that would still be a crime, enough of one to deter most anyone. That's how laws should work.
So you're a US Citizen. You should not have to wait in line for hours to vote, only to find out that you have been purged from the voter rolls. It should not be difficult to register. Timely access to a polling place should not become a burden.
Everyone who is a citizen should be registered to vote. The choice of whether to vote or not should sit with the citizen, not with a contrived mechanism dumped on the citizenry by politicians with personal motivation.
Try the Oregon approach. Vote by mail. Easy access to ballots for those who have moved or those whose dog ate their ballot (as mine did in the last election) Ballot drop offs at the libraries and Post Offices.
Yes we still value our Libraries and our voting system is fair.
3
I generally doubt that anything Douthat says holds water.
That said, I’ve always believed this issue is one that Democrats could capitalize on by agreeing with voter ID requirements, and then hitting up the Soroses of the world and pouring money into states to pay for voter IDs and voter registration drives.
If that rich guy spending his billions to run impeachment ads spent as much to register voters in Texas, the impeachment drive might very well be moot.
Of course, that might make rich Dems beholden to the constituencies that really need progressive policy changes, and just as much as I doubt that Douthat’s words hold water, I also doubt that the billionaire donors of the gala class have much interest in pushing policies beneficial to us 99%ers.
1
Given that 80,000 votes spread over three states decided the last presidential election, I really draw no comfort from this new analysis. Wisconsin went to Trump by less than 30,000 votes. Other experts have concluded that Wisconsin's changes in voter ID requirements in 2015 did play a meaningful part in depressing Democratic turn out.
5
@Heather
Or it could have been Hillary assuming it was in the bag and not campaigning in Wisconsin. She certainly made time to go there to hawk her book!
The continued assault on voter ID laws is stunning. Obviously the author has not had the same experience as people who actually work in the polling places. Although many stories are anecdotal, I wonder if a million anecdotes is worth looking at.
I only work at one polling place and have seen about 25-30 fraudulent votes in every major election. The majority are absentee ballots but a hefty 10-20 percent are people that have voted elsewhere. So how would I know? Maybe the accompanying 6 year old's proud statement that "we already voted ..." in another school was a dead give away.
And perhaps the admission of NYC's commissioner that people were bused all over the place to vote is a clue.
If we should be doing everything to get all the votes possible we should also be doing everything to make sure that those votes are legitimate.
It's no more hysteria to show an ID to vote than to show an ID to cash a check for $50. I personally think a vote is worth more than $50, but that's just me. I need an ID to buy beer, a gun, and drive a car. Why on earth shouldn't I need an ID to determine the future of the country.
1
If there's one fact about this issue that has been conclusively demonstrated by study after study, it is that the "problem" supposedly being addressed by voter ID laws doesn't exist. Now we have one study which claims that voter ID laws don't actually reduce minority turnout, and of course Ross jumps on this immediately as the basis of yet another both-sides column.
5
1) the authors of the study are economists not political scientists. Should the public put their faith in a study produced by people with the wrong credentials to produce this kind of study?
2) Even small effects on voter turnout can decide elections. Put together enough small impediments to voting and you can decide a lot of elections.
3) The claim is made that fear of voter fraud is sincere. In the absence of any evidence of significant amounts of voter fraud should we just assume that it is sincere because people say it is?
7
I’ve had enough conversations with people who had no reason to lie to me and insisted that things I thought were obvious were not obvious. So yes, I have no trouble believing that many Republicans sincerely believe there is widespread voter fraud. How easy it is to assume people who disagree with you are insincere. But with an entire delusion-based media apparatus providing “evidence,” why wouldn’t some people believe such things?
1
Several years ago here in Pennsylvania, the GOP attempted to steamroll a burdensome voter I.D law through the legislature it controlled, forcing minorities and the indigent to jump through several more hoops in order to pull the lever. After a little due diligence, it was found that not a single documented case of voter fraud could be found in the state. Like ever. The measure ultimately failed, but I seriously question Douthat’s assertion that many in the GOP have a “sincere” concern about voter fraud. Looks awfully like voter suppression to me.
6
If Voter Id is considered in isolation then Ross might have a point about a finding a starting place for common ground between Dems and Repubs. However when you consider Voter Id along with gerrymandering and packing the federal courts it becomes apparent the Repubs will do anything to win. In this situation attempting to come together on Voter Id is just a waste of time. Best course of action is vote Dem at all levels - local, state and federal - until Repubs learn they have to start acting like caretakers of our democracy again.
4
Op ed is about how voter ID makes no difference on anything. NY Times commenters mention every other election requirement besides voter ID in ripping the op ed about voter ID. Priceless.
1
The writer of this article is very out of touch with reality. He has obviously never experience the the incredible hassle of obtaining a government issue ID initially or when yours has expired and the period for automatic renewal has ended.
This is especially true for those who don't drive, who of course, tend to live in cities and are enlightened and vote Democratic.
5
One meta study of the overall effect ignores the fact that the purpose of the voter id law is to reduce dem turnout at the margins -- i.e., close elections such as WI 2016 and GA 2018.
It only becomes important with close elections.
Douthat is comparing apples with oranges.
4
I think Ross is right that this is primarily a symbolic issue, but I also think symbols are important. That's my two cents.
And here's the rest of the dollar: economists need to chill on studying things outside of their field. Voting habits are the realm of psychologists and sociologists. Economics is mostly pseudoscience and misappropriation of psychology and sociology. It's a social science masquerading as mathematics. It pretends to be an equal branch of social science on par with the main three (psychology, sociology, and anthropology [also mostly pseudoscience]), but it's really just a subset of those fields, just like political science. Economists love to take a psychological phenomenon, like operant conditioning, and appropriate it for themselves as "market forces" or whatever buzzwords they've come up with.
Scientists—not economists—should study voting habits. Economists need to focus on figuring out how to bring empiricism into their field.
1
Real scientists, not economists, probably have better things to do.
Chicago style ballot stuffing is a valuable tool Democrats are not likely to give up willingly.
3
So Republicans, the party of alternate facts, are suddenly goinh to believe that voter fraud isn’t rampant because of research!!?? Well that is really what you can call an alternative fact!! Or science fiction.
2
If one buys the claimed results, why, oh why, is the solution for the Republicans to step down, and not the Democrats. If the Democrats stepped down and we had the comfort of knowing the vote was more sound, AND per the study cited, it would have no discernable impact on voter turnout and participation it makes imminent sense for the Democrats to allow sound identification laws. The impact from the Democratic side wouldbe to rob the Republicans of this key "emotional" issue possibly cutting votes for Republicans, while having no impact, whatsoever, on the turnout of the Democrat's favored constituencies . Only reason I can think of is that this is an opinion piece in the Times.
1
As Douthat himself says, the study verifies what many other studies have, that the fear of illegal voting, especially Chicago machine style (good pizza, though) is way overblown, whereas the finding that voter IDs do not cause much voter suppression, not of consequence, is more suprising, and I would add, needs more verification.
That said, a couple of thoughts:
1) conservative politicians might gain from abandoning their voter ID stance and the fear in terms of not baselessly infuriating people of color, but they would lose votes from their base who would be less afraid, and thus less likely to vote, or who would consider their reps as sell outs and also maybe less likely to vote; fear motivates;
2) if the last 10 years in particular have taught me anything, it is that too many voters on either side are not easily convinced by evidence, however compelling, once they have bought into a belief however lacking in evidence - many can't tell the difference between good anlysis without cherrypicking or bias vs. a screed with charged language, while others are just stubborn.
1
I worry much more about electronic vote manipulation. Election results should be regularly audited; they are not. Every vote should leave a paper trail, and I mean paper. If you don't think electronic voter fraud can happen, read about this guy who cheated the lotto:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/03/magazine/money-issue-iowa-lottery-fraud-mystery.html
1
The republican party realized many years ago that they couldn't get elected to dog-catcher if they ran on their defunct and obsolete ideas. Any inclination to change and adapt to the times probably died with the Gang of Eight's failure to adopt some kind of sensible immigration laws. Since then, there are no more votes to be gained the old fashioned way so you gotta do everything you can to reduce the vote tally on the other. It's pretty simple math–one less vote for you is one more vote for me. In Trump we see this strategy reaching it's full glory–squeeze every vote you can out of a shrinking minority of voters and doing everything possible to stop the other side. Douthat is right about this–it won't (doesn't?) work! It's just another finger in the demographical dyke that is bursting as we speak.
2
@Paul
Is that why Trump won 30 states?
Damn! One or the other of us must be slipping. I can't find a thing in this piece to take Ross to task for.
Ross and editors, please provide a free copy of the study or at least an in-depth analysis of its work. Ross's link takes you to a summary, which is not as satisfying as Ross implies. The study "suggests" that there "may not be an effect."
The summary contains the sentence," 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. "
I don't see how campaign contributions can be directed "against the [ID] laws, or how they obtained statistically reliable "self-reported political engagement." I believe it remains possible to attribute the lack of effect to the outrage among many persons causing them to devote additional efforts to increase turnout among disadvantaged groups.
That this effort was required in the first place and must be relied on to continue is a problem for our democracy. The debate Ross doesn't like must continue until voting rights trump all false distinctions like unnecessary ID requirements, poll locations and times, and claims of fraud.
The biggest myth is that Voter ID has anything to do with election fraud. You have only to look at North Carolina which has a strict voter photo ID requirement. Yet North Carolina had the most egregious election fraud issue in 2018.
The North Carolina voter fraud grew out of a vulnerable and foolish absentee ballot process that is so egregiously deficient nobody can contend that the authors of the Voter ID law were genuinely concerned with eliminating voter fraud in North Carolina elections.
183
@OldBoatMan Greater voter education would help as people fall prey to so much misinformation. The state and local voting agencies should be funded so proper elections can be carried out.
6
@OldBoatMan NC had no "strict" voter photo ID requirement in place when that fraud occurred this past year. The voter ID requirement was passed in the 2018 election and has yet to be implemented. The NC Voter ID Amendment was on the ballot in North Carolina as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018 and it was approved by a majority of the votes cast. That said, I am not in favor of voter ID requirements.
2
@OldBoatMan
You are correct, which is why places like California should not be attempting to expand their even shakier absentee ballot process with ballot harvesting.
7
I liked seeing Douthat jettison that whole namby-pamby, “right’s right, and wrong’s wrong,” theory just as soon as it was convenient. Didn’t take the whole, “if one individual is hurt,” standard, either.
Not a cool move with citing an article that didn’t so much as mention voting even once as “proof,” that the Right has anything to worry about by way of handing illegal immigrants the vote, though.
Well, if it isn’t Ross again, trying to play the false equivalency game. “Both sides are wrong.”
See if you can dig up some tapes of Rachel Maddow’s programs on the GOP voter suppression that went on last year.
Voter I.D.? Tip of the iceburg. How about North Dakota’s GOP (between the primary and the election) shoving in new rules saying that Native Americans who live in rural off-the-grid locations on their tribal reservations were no longer being allowed to vote with their nearby PO Box addresses as they have for decades and decades. Only traditional street addresses would be honored, despite there not being traditional streets and street grids where they live. All to suppress the vote for Heidi Heitkamp.
How about Dodge Kansas? This city which leans blue had one large polling place right in the middle of town, easily accessible. After first receiving information in the mail with errors and mistakes with dates, it was announced that the polling venue would be moved miles and miles OUT OF THE TOWN to a distant
location only reachable by car!
And the voter suppression at Texas State University.
Or closing rural DMVs.
Or, just this month, Texas A.G. Ken Paxton falsely claiming there were nearly 100,000 illegal residents who voted. Within hours this was being debunked.
C’mon Ross. Please produce evidence of Republicans truly valuing the constitutional rights of black and brown people to vote and taking active, honest steps to help them do so.
Voter ID? Pshaw!
1
I have been involved in voter registration efforts, either full-time or part time, for 47 years. I have witnessed multi-generation American farm workers fired for registering in rural Florida. Widespread voter intimidation in Chicago.Last minute polling place relocation and blatant gerrymandering in Pennsylvania, etc. etc.
The voter I.D. issue, I believe, is an organizer's dream. What better argument for registering to vote than that "Those in power don't want you to vote. That's why they are making it so hard."
Americans have fought and died for our right to vote, both in foreign and domestic wars and in the women's suffrage and civil rights movements. We are have a responsibility to vote, despite the obstacles.
Don't whine, organize !
124
@Hugh Tague
Hi Hugh, Also in PA. Are you aware of the work of FairDistrictsPA? They are doing good work to end partisan gerrymandering in our state.
8
Douthat, of course, did not mention the North Dakota change in voting ID requirements just before the last election, requiring that any ID show a physical mailing address, not just a PO Box, knowing that no one living on a Reservation had a physical address, but only a PO Box. Before the next election, I'm sure that will be taken care of and all houses on the Reservation will suddenly sprout house numbers. But it did prevent a large number of citizens from voting and changed the party of a Senator from that state.
I'm not saying voter ID laws by definitively reduce turnout of minority voters, but the Republicans who work so tirelessly to comprehensively suppress minority voting sure do.
Just ask Mitch "It's a Power Grab" McConnell.
I love how ross admits it might made a difference in close elections but then pretends that doesn't matter because most aren't close.
How willfully ignorant/dishonest can a person be?
Hello, Bush v. Gore?
How many of the Nov. 2018 elections were contested?
@C's Daughter
The passage of time shows that provenance saved us from Gore.Thank you chads.
1
@GDK
Don't you mean "Providence"? If that's the case, and if Providence saved us from Gore, it also gave us W. Either way, it doesn't work because although the Almighty has a sense of humor, He isn't cruel.
1
“Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression.”
Anxiety based on willful ignorance and an irrational belief in obvious lies about a nonexistent problem amounts to the same thing as a cynical cover for racist vote suppression.
If you think that fighting over seemingly trivial issues is really the issue, then you're showing your complete naivete. When a seemingly unimportant issue is thrown out for others to fight about, look around for the party that is benefiting from getting others to fight. Then look for the issue they don't want you to notice.
How about incomprehensible jerrymandering, corporations as people, money as speech, and corporate welfare, environmental and workplace regulation roll-backs?
Fight about voter identification? Pishtush.
Ross,
I suggest you go to Wikipedia and type in the following search terms: "poll tax" and "Voting Rights Act". Use these as your starting point. Then, open up this article you wrote in your word processor, select all (ctrl-a), delete, and start over. You then might understand where the anxiety, as you put it, comes from with regards to these voter suppression laws, whether the impact is "real" or not.
1
Ross, as with so many other attempts to limit the rights of citizens, it's only important when they target you.
If Douthat was an honest broker of facts, I might trust his report on this study, which sits behinds a $5 paywall. But he usually works hard to mislead, as he does here with: "much of the right's anxiety ... is sincere."
It doesn't matter that millions of Republicans believe in the falsehood of in-person voter fraud. What matters is that in-person voter fraud is a falsehood, an untruth, a lie, propagated by one party with it's media collaborators as just one among many tactics in a national strategy to reduce votes for Democrats. Today, GOP efforts to reduce votes for Democrats are operating in over half the states.
Let's wait and see what honest brokers make of this new study. (FiveThirtyEight, anybody?)
1
Less than 50% vote, doesn't that sound pathetic. Voter I D does prohibit voting to what extent no one can say because it is immeasurable. We do no that voter fraud is not by individual but by politician stuffing the box.
For years Republicans have said that we need voter ID laws to ensure the integrity of elections. For years Democrats have responded that voter ID laws disenfranchise voters. There is a simple response to the issue that Democrats raise; make it easy and free to get IDs.
Yet not a single Republican voter ID law has had this simple solution. In fact, Republicans have been making it harder for select groups.
Douthat says that voter ID laws haven't had the impact that Republicans hoped for. But that is irrelevant to me. What is important is that Republicans are so willing to trample on Constitutional rights to gain partisan advantage, while boasting how they support the Constitution and American liberties. Gross hypocrisy is never pretty
Dishonest Mr. Douthat, better to call this "The Myths of GOP interested in democracy"
1
Nice try--again--Ross.
You have a way of picking and choosing your sources to confirm your biases.
Voter ID laws are all about preventing democratic voters from voting, and you know it.
You haven’t done your research well. There is a large body of literature indicating that voter ID laws suppress voter turnout. The link you give for the article takes you to a site where you have to buy it to read it. This paper you cite isn’t even in the Rutgers library. You owe it to your readers to describe the methodology by which this researcher counted poor, rural and/or elderly who couldn’t get IDs. This sounds potentially like “junk” research selectively chosen by you yo make a political point.
1
Another good attempt at arguing for even-handedness and equal blame, left and right.
Mr. Douthat,
I noticed little or no mention of Trump's declaration that every POTUS election is fixed. Even the one he won, apparently, was fixed, and I'm sure you remember his commitment to not accept the results if he lost.
POTUS standing at the bully pulpit or the campaign bullhorn declaring American Democracy is a farce, is the most damaging thing to come down the pike in decades.
Obama and Clinton never did that. So stop it with the absurd left and right are both to blame nonsense. It's far simpler than that Ross, if only you could see it.
2
There is no ”scourge” of voting fraud. There is virtually none at all. Opinion articles should be fact checked. This one is based on a lie and is disgraceful. There are no two sides to this story. The Republicans created a fake issue in order to reduce voter turnout because they cannot win a fiat fight. Period.
If voter IDs are ineffective in reducing turnout, that makes the GOP as innocent as an attempted murderer who can’t shoot straight. It says nothing of their other efforts to reduce turnout, such as engineering long lines in minority districts.
Shame on the Times for publishing this.
2
To conservatives, registering every American at 18 y/o is too avoided as a socialist measure, saying that anyone should have the right to not register as a voter.
This headline is intentionally deceptive. It is not a “myth” that Republicans want to suppress voter turnout and deny the right to vote of people the GOP expects will vote against them. IDs are just one of their suppression tools.
In a country where less then 50% of the eligible voters...vote..it’s way too early to stop talking about voter suppression.
I have a better idea. Let's just eliminate the Republican party in the next several election cycles. This action will resolve the many phony issues that they constantly run on to the detriment of the many real problems that American's face. Republicans are now the party of trump, that is a party of lies, division, corruption and above all incompetency.
This is from a 64 year old former Republican. Never again will I vote for any Republican.
Voter-ID laws, like voter registration laws when they were first introduced and Wilbur Ross' census citizenship question today, deliberately disenfranchise by either excluding or intimidating those who don't have the right papers at the right time. Either helps the fearmongering GOP party-cult.
A government that trusts the people (it derives its powers from us in the first place) is repaid that trust many times over with healthy, happy taxpayers. A government that instead attacks their legitimacy with bureaucratic hurdles (the GOP once said they were AGAINST that, remember?) gets the people's distrust. That also benefits the vile GOP, who use people's inability to trust government to make it "small" (enough to fit in a uterus).
Such papers-please systems are best left in the old Soviets, now the playground of tyrant putin.
If you're a citizen (and thus in a creepy government DB anyway) you ought to be able to vote without opt-in to registration or paying for ID. New York does it well: they still do registration of course (and reports that some voters were deregistered in NYC for 2016 were disturbing) but they sent me a card (for free) with identifying and polling-station info to take to the vote, then I showed that to the correct election district's poll workers and signed my name with them as having gone there. Easy.
(I haven't even touched the RealCreepyID law, which will make such IDs into RFIDs easier to steal, and require them even for DOMESTIC travel! Stupid.)
"Usually when some sententious centrist talks . . ."
No need to read further.
1
Ross I'm not sure your right about the right's anxiety about voter fraud being sincere. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/opinion/a-crusader-against-voter-fraud-fails-to-prove-his-case.html
Ross, if you've been paying attention, voter fraud is real ... as demonstrated by the Republicans in North Carolina, and, as an empirical matter, in many other states where the courts have intervened. And, as to your "study" ... I'd suggest you broaden your reading list about voter discrimintion and suppression, as you can easily find other sources of evidence to the contrary. Nice try though ....
2
Just because the Right’s belief in voter id laws is “sincere” doesn’t make it reasonable or necessary. The facts about voter id laws are that they a) disparately impact minorities and poor folks and b) are based on a non existent problem. It’s no different than the hordes screaming about the Wall; I’m sure they sincerely believe Trump is telling them the truth about these deranged, drug running immigrants coming to steal their children despite evidence to the contrary.
I’m tired of hearing about Conservatives’ deeply held beliefs; give me some policy based on facts and reality.
The two I remember from 2016 were a Republican ELECTION JUDGE who voted for her dead husband, and the Republican state party chairman in Colorado.
More hogwash from Ross(R).
But he has a mellifluous and somnambulate tone, so remain sleeping. Please. It's only your constitutional rights that he want to abrogate.
It's the republican way.
1
"...the laws....do serve as a continuing gesture of disrespect to minority voters....So their removal from the Republican agenda could be an act of minority outreach unto itself."
kinda sounds like: "We've been beating you with this stick for years. Look, the stick is gone! We're friends, now, right?"
Let’s dispense with this garbage and just start with “everybody has a right to vote”. Shouldn’t that be the most preciously guarded principle? Wouldn’t we want to guarantee that with great prejudice in order to secure a strong democracy? What possible legitimate argument can be made otherwise?
The irony of clsim by Democrats that Voter IDs disadvantage minority voters is insulting to minority voters.
That claim assumes that minority voters are too unmotivated or ignorant to obtain an ID.
That is false and creates an unfair derogatory stereotype.
2
It strikes me as odd that a Christian who sincerely believes he will someday have to make a detailed accounting to God, can so willfully delude himself in order to support his preferred political ideology. You can't lie to God, Ross. He knows what you really think. Your rhetorical tricks will not work on Him.
Ross I'm surprised by your naivete. You are entertaining the fantasy that the republican party would ever make a decision on the basis of a logical argument. The republican party abandoned belief in a fact-based reality some time ago, but perhaps you missed the memo.
If you want to have any impact as a conservative pundit, you better stick to ideology and pathos; facts are for democrats.
Or you could wake up and realize you are a passenger on a train that is heading in very much the wrong direction and it is time to jump off. It's not so hard, just ask Jennifer Rubin.
1
The notion that a person - who could be a Republican or a Democrat - (why do Republicans assume that only Democrats would cheat? Republicans are choir boys? Ha. Ha. Ha.) would go to tremendous individual trouble and effort and risk federal prosecution in order to vote ONE EXTRA STINKING TIME is just hysterically ludicrous.
As for non citizens voting, it's rare as we've seen, but let's play that game.
Democrats need to come up with voter registration and voting proposals that counter the Republican voter ID laws.
Something reasonable like registration at birth in this country. Birth = citizen.
Registration tied to one's unique social security number. Or some other, new type of citizen number.
AND a secure way to make registration changes.
Next, voting on Sunday.
Voting on a workday is STUPID!
Other countries don't do that.
More voting places.
Mail voting. (like Oregon - very popular)
Picture ID or two forms of printed ID.
(Bank statement, Utility bill, work ID with picture, credit card or statement)
Newsflash-- you CAN get on an airplane with two forms of non picture ID. My girlfriend did.
Nobody is going to bother to forge your bank and utility statement so they can impersonate you on election day!
For one lousy extra vote!!
Who in their right mind would bother and risk prosecution!
If you are a voter fraud freak, tell us: how does it occur? Be specific.
And, if it DID occur the Republican fraud would cancel out the Democrat fraud.
So, all even anyway.
People's "anxiety" is not a means of justifying anything nor does the "sincerity" of their anxiety make it more justifiable.
It seems your conservative fellows and yourself are polar opposites, which makes you a liberal.
What are you arguing about? That they can't handle the truth.
My wife and I both come from a white middle class backgrounds. Her father and my mother both have birth certificates with no first name indicated on them. Neither had problems until they needed passports later in life. While the problems were solved in both cases, it was really rather difficult and questionable whether most citizens could solve such problems without expensive help - especially if they live far away from the place of birth.
Thus demanding birth certificates with prefect details will put large burdens on many people who can not afford them or have the necessary bureaucratic expertise unless there are programs to facilitate resolution of such problems at affordable costs.
I agree, voter fraud is rare.
However, voting is trivially easy. Especially compared to setting up a smart phone, paying taxes correctly, school registration, a visit to the Dr. for a sore throat.
You need an ID to get on an airplane, buy alcohol, buy non prescription allergy medicine, or talk to a teacher at school.
Furthermore, unlike unexpected illness, bad weather, or car breakdowns, voting is entirely predictable. Tues Nov 3, 2020. You have almost two years to figure this out plus multiple ways to vote early, etc.
With or without ID, how easy it is to vote should be the gold standard for all other government provided functions.
2
Funny, you tell us we should roll our eyes at '“data” or “studies” or “expert consensus,”' and then give us a perfect example of why we shouldn't. Seems to me on many issues we could use more facts, not less. At least then we'd be able to make cogent decisions based on reality rather than dogma or ideology. Isn't that what responsible citizens want?
1
The voter fraud claim is a made up excuse for the purpose of stirring up the wingnut base and with the hope of dissuading minority voters or disqualifying them for lack of ID proof.
The shame of all of this is that there is a real need for good, relatively incontestable ID. The problem of proving who you are is a real issue for many people, particularly at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Financial institutions reap huge amounts of income by drawing out the process by which one can cash a check, Governmental and corporate bureaucrats can delay rights and benefits, at substantial detriment to those who do not produce ID that is deemed satisfactory.
The government should provide, to every legal resident, an ID that is prima facie incontestable, in the absence of an indication of forgery. That ID probably ought be supported by a system of biometric identification.
There are some people who do not want to be found, either because they are fugitives from the law or from lives they would prefer to forget. We should not frame our ID standards based upon the desires of those people. If they would prefer to live without a legal ID, that is their choice.
However, the law ought be very clear as to when it is that a person can be required to produce their ID. The arbitrary identification of people, for the purpose of tracking movement or to "fish for" fugitives is contrary to our fundamental constitutional principles. There ought to be clear rules protecting anonymity.
In this day and age, what's so difficult about getting a picture ID? It's not "racist" to ask for one, nor is it suppressing anyone's Right to Vote.
43
@Ryan
Funny how there are countless Republican officials, on the record, stating that voter supression and winning elections is exactly the intent of voter IDs.
57
@Ryan While there is nothing racist per se about voter ID cards, the intent is sometimes racist if you believe that insisting on such cards will prevent certain groups from voting either because they have no picture ID card or cannot easily get one. Sometimes these laws also make it difficult to obtain such cards by insisting on very specific cards that are not easily obtainable in certain areas.
42
@Ryan It's not difficult for you or for me. That's the point. People like us easily get a voter ID. But for elderly or some minority groups, there can be real financial and logistical obstacles.
63
Colorado makes it extremely easy to vote, and our voter id laws are simple. We have among the highest voter turnout in the nation. Even so, when I worked for Denver Elections, there were people who did not have a government-issued id for many reasons. Usually, they had some form of acceptable id, but not always.
Personally, I have never seen a problem with requiring ID to vote. It is not an uncommon practice.
The problem is when one is denied access because he is registered as "John Quincy Adams" but his ID says "John Q. Adams".
Thirty-seven (I believe) states have some form of vote-by-mail provision. The whole drama at the polls on election day could be avoided by voting this way. Beat them at their own game.
All mail in voting is the BEST solution to ensuring access for all legal voters. Those of us who live in states where we’ve had all mail in voting for more than a decade think the rest of the country is crazy. And we are tired of reading about their closed polling places and their long lines etc. get with it!
1
Interesting. But the symmetrical presentation is rather generous towards the conservative side. While the ulterior motives behind at least some of the push for voter ID laws is well documented, you cannot seriously say the same about the opposition to it. No liberal politician can credibly be accused of wanting to extend voting rights to non-citizens, while several Republicans have acknowledged that voter ID laws they promoted were meant to suppress Democrat and minority votes. Furthermore, voter ID laws, whether effective or not, are only a subset of a larger campaign to suppress votes, which also includes felony disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.
So yes, Republicans do need to step back. It is their reactionary attempts to rig the voting system to stay in power rather than update their agenda in the face of changing public views that is creating this agitation.
2
"modest, if any, turnout effects of voter identification laws” in the best research on the subject. So a voter ID requirement might possibly affect the closest of close races,. " Modest and Might I think are pretty important findings to ignore.
A national picture ID for all citizens (as many countries already have) would resolve the voter ID issue, the gun background check issue, and many others. Refusal to act on this says everything about motives.
This study does not try to measure the additional burden on voters due to ID requirements. That has moral significance, even if the voters manage to overcome these additional burdens, as this study suggests.
If additional burdens on voters end up not mattering for partisan purposes, that is another matter. But one might have thought that Mr. Douthat cared about more than mere partisanship.
Nor does it assess the accuracy by which voters are identified. With respect to the latter, tightening down on false positives tends to increase false negatives, in this case, people wrongly turned away from the polls.
My own experience includes one occasion I was turned away from polls, due to my having an ID that was completely valid, but just a bit different. Also, there's an amusing case in which my driver license was revoked because Baton Rouge lost my check to pay a traffic ticket, which does not lend confidence in the ID system.
I quote "much of the right's anxiety about voter fraud is sincere"
For you and those fellow conservatives who believe this, I have a great bridge that you may be interesting in buying.
What angered people about Voter ID is that it was a solution to a make believe crisis. The only intent of the laws was to suppress votes, its irrelevant that it didn't work out as well as they hoped.
2
Thanks! Some great news for an admittedly anxious-over-voter-suppression guy like me. Spot on about the wedge it presents to minority voters for the GOP to perpetuate if truly a red herring issue.
DEMs need to fight fire with fire. So long as the GOP makes rules like strict ID requirements then DEMs need to develop a volunteer network to help as many disadvantaged people as possible satisfy the ID requirements and get IDs.
That's the FIRST step. Then #2, work to get them to the polls.
DEMs need to beat the GOP at their own game. Then #3, once the DEMs are in a position to change the rules they can do something more long term.
To strike a balance between preventing extremely rare voter fraud and less than feared voter suppression, what do you weigh on the two scales? Both undermine confidence in the process -- that's a wash. A fraudulent vote cancels out an opposing legitimate vote. That's a one-to-one correspondence: are more eligible voters being prevented from voting than fraudulent voters being deterred? The statistics I've seen say overwhelmingly yes. But the harm isn't just in election results. You also need to weigh the denial of his or her fundamental right to participate in our democracy whenever any eligible voter is prevented from voting. Would you say that denying an individual's 1st amendment right to speak is okay because no one would have been persuaded by them?
Is it possible that although the voter ID laws did not have any effect on turnout that the laws contribute to the low levels of turnout among certain groups? The poor, for example, have a relatively low turnout rate and these laws would help to perpetuate that trend. We need policies that work to increase voter turnout and not ones that, far from being neutral, perpetuate low turnout among certain groups.
The integrity of our voting system should be a non-partisan issue. We should have a system that encourages as many eligible voters as possible to vote, a system that is both fraud resistant and easy for citizens to enter.
Idea:
1. Registration with Social Security (SS) at birth or when taking the citizenship oath.
2. A NATIONAL voter registration database maintained by SS based on the SS#.
3. Teens obtain either a driver's license or equivalent DMV type state ID card for non-drivers. This establishes their residency in a state. This could be done through public schools instead of by requiring trips to DMV offices. An ID card would be free. A driver's license would have the usual fee.
3. Upon turning 18 voters are AUTOMATICALLY registered by SS sending information to Sec. of State of each state and the Sec. of State sending a notice to the newly registered at their addresses on record.
This approach would be streamlined and result in very few people falling through the cracks.
If African Americans on average suffer from lack of IDs this needs to be rectified. People cannot function successfully in our society without proper ID. Regardless of the voter registration/fraud issue this is another issue both parties should be able to get behind unless one of the parties prefers to have Blacks at a major disadvantage.
There are lots of other aspects that need addressing. Not enough space here. But the above suggests an approach.
The elderly
former felons
etc.
I find it sad that Mr. Douthat’s piece focuses narrowly on the point that voter ID laws, if this study is to be accepted as accurate, are important to consider only in that such laws purportedly do not affect the outcome of elections. This is an important but merely pragmatic consideration. The outcome of the election is not the only consideration. The impact of voter suppression laws and rhetoric that aims to dissuade and intimidate voters tears at the fabric of our democracy. Numerous investigations have shown that there is little to no voter fraud in this country; yet Republicans keep stoking fear about it, and Democrats repeatedly work to protect rights and expand access. Polling places have been closed and relocated, voters purged from roles for voting infrequently, early voting periods shortened — by Republicans. Which party position promotes our ideals and encourages active participation of citizens in the process of governing?
3
Good article with logical conclusions, but misses a much more impactful aspect of voter suppression. That culprit is partisan (predominantly Republican) gerrymandering. When Republicans tinker with district maps to positively impact election results they are effectively disenfranchising all of the Democrats in that district. This is occurring on a vastly larger scale than voter ID restrictions and impacts everyone. If we're going to get into a lather over an issue related to voting fairness, gerrymandering should be the focus.
1
These laws were passed for one purpose; to seek to disenfranchise. This has been admitted by the operatives who were the driving force behind their enactment. Whether or not the laws were effective in this regard is absolutely irrelevant. That so much energy and effort by the Republican Party has been put into this strategy and spreading the fraud of voter fraud speaks volumes about what the party is about.
1
If the study is really reliable, your suggestion is a wonderful opportunity.
Thank you, because I had no idea it was a non-issue.
I agree with Ross Douthat that the voter ID situation is not as dire as painted by the Democrats and the Republicans .The Republican leaning Florida laws now permit former felons to vote does more for minority voting than any change in voter ID registration can do.On the Democratic side counting illegals in the census in places like California would increase Democratic dominance and disenfranchise citizens.I think the Republicans are the good guys.
1
Republicans believe that the people who own the country should run it. This is not a new idea. In their Constitution our "founding fathers" awarded the right to vote to white male property owners only.
Currently, about 75,000 people out of 325 million own about half of the nation's wealth. The "libertarian" right, the GOP's donor base, believe these folks should be in charge of the government.
Because the GOP's "small government" agenda, (government of, by, and for the rich) is unattainable under majority rule and representative democracy, Republicans have given up on our Constitutional system as "too socialist" and are attempting to replace it with oligarchy and strong man rule. This is what they mean when they say they "don't believe in government."
The election of a black president in 2008 was the last straw for the GOP. Since then, led by McConnell and others, their efforts have been solely directed at reducing taxes and blocking the normal functions of government.
Shutting down the government is just one way of blocking any attempt by the majority to govern. Voter ID and other voter suppression tactics are another.
Conservatives who still believe in democracy have lost control of the GOP. The GOP is dead as a functioning part of our representative democracy.
If you don't want to live under oligarchy and strong man rule, vote Democratic in 2020 -- that's literally your only remaining choice.
3
I agree that voter ID laws are useful but not significant.
What would be truly worth the discussion would be the effort to have all federal elections vote by mail. That would eliminate most if not all voter suppression activities, and along the way help people vote who have child care responsibilities, or no car or other transportation problems.
We have it in Oregon and it is a vital ally to Constitutional democracy.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
3
All this conversation about voter suppression is missing something which I’m surprised no one identified. The three states I’ve lived over the past 60 years all allow…absentee voting. It’s easy pick up the phone call the elections office and request a ballot roughly 30 days before the election. Complete it in the comfort of your home….then mail it back. What could be easier….no lines…no waiting….cost is only 2 stamps and the most important of all….no ID needed.
1
As the fraudulent Congressional election last year in North Carolina illustrates, the real potential for election fraud is not in registration or in-person voting, but in absentee ballots.
Guess which party gets a disproportionate part of those votes?
2
A related issue not touched on in the article but worth exploring is elections for local school boards. I was, before retiring, a teacher in a school district that serves families that are overwhelmingly immigrants. The district does not require proof of citizenship, just residency within its borders. The Board of Education only partially reflects those who use the school system. Since elections for the Board are separate from the elections for other government offices, might there be a way to give the actual users of the school system greater ownership?
Every citizen and every green-card holder should have a tamper-resistant ID card issued by the federal government, with the most modern anti-fraud measures (iris scans, fingerprints) built into the card. I have no doubt that the tech to create such a card exists - every Western European nation has such cards. This should be at no cost to the holder, including no cost to prove citizenship or green-card status. There are very few citizens alive who were born in the US for whom a birth certificate does not exist. Obtaining those birth certificates from the state authorities should be at the cost of the federal government. As for naturalized citizens and green-card holders, those records already exist at the federal level. Such an ID should be definitive proof (in the case of a citizen) of the right to vote and, in the case of both citizens and green-card holders, of the right to work in the US (and of the right to fly on a commercial aircraft). Obviously, each voter would still need to prove that he/she lives in the district where he/she seeks to vote - and that proof should be made far easier to obtain (google maps and What3Words can pinpoint every residential building in the country). The choice of "universal ID" (for citizens and green-card holders) is much better than the false dichotomy of "no ID" vs. "ridiculously difficult for some people to obtain ID". The benefits would far outweigh the costs.
2
I have been voting for more than fifty years --first in Pennsylvania, next D.C., next Virginia, now Florida -- and cannot remember ever being able to obtain a ballot at a polling station without presenting ID, usually a driver's license. The same ID is widely necessary for travel, access to government buildings, purchase of alcohol or tobacco products and financial transactions. Those who don't drive can generally get an alternative ID.
I remember when voting at a polling station generally occurred on one day -- election day. Absentee ballots were confined to those willing to attest they couldn't make it to their designated polling station on the designated day(s).
Casting a ballot shouldn't be harder than the other tasks we encounter in our daily lives; should it be far easier?
So if you want to vote and you don't have an ID, be an adult and make the small time investment required to get an ID. Maybe we need to stop treating adults like children. A little barrier to voting isn't a bad thing. If a person is too lazy or busy to bring an ID to get an ID in order to vote, maybe they really shouldn't be voting. With the stipulation that the government isn't being overly restrictive on the type of ID that could be used. From what I've seen in state voter legislation, the IDs that can be used are extensive.
1
The GOP have never commanded the majority of American voters. After decades of hard work, conservative think-tanks have figured out a successful systemic plan to award political power to a minority party. Limiting voter participation, which is advantageous only to the GOP, is only one of their strategies and the most noticeably undemocratic of them all. The Senate leader Mitch McConnell has admitted the GOPs great deception by denigrating the idea of an "election day national holiday" as a power play by the Democrats, because it would attract more voters to the polls meaning fewer votes in total for the GOP. Sad!
4
If Douthat's non-peer-reviewed paper is correct that voter ID restrictions do not deter many individuals from voting, we still have to remember the underlying causes for why this may be true. My suspicion is that the individuals who would be most affected by voter ID laws are those with low incomes. Given that low income individuals do not vote for a variety of reasons (e.g., time and money constraints, fatigue, lack of education), it is unsurprising that voter ID laws alone would make a substantial dent in the voting rates. However, if one of these factors were to change (e.g., if Election Day became a national holiday), it is quite possible that voter ID laws would then affect the rates.
2
If voter ID laws had no effect on preventing fraud, then I presume, Mr. Douthat, that you agree, as a conservative who does not favor unnecessary regulations, that such laws, which increase societal burdens, are an example of over regulation and should be repealed.
10
The more I read about voter fraud fears and polling station availability I wonder why more states don't adopt Oregon's vote by mail scheme. I get my ballot well ahead of election day in the mail and can vote at my leisure, no rushing to a poll, no identification hassle.
By contrast I feel like most of the country's voting systems are stuck in the 19th century.
6
@Joel I live in Washington state and just wrote the same comment. All mail in is the best
There may exist a middle ground for those who wish to seek it. Require expanded hours to ease voter access- Sunday afternoon and evening, anyone? And with that expansion there is the opportunity for mischief- so require ID or some proof of residency.
You can’t get on an airplane, get a job application, open a bank account, or even visit a loved one in many hospitals without photo ID.
Make it easy, make it secure, and move on.
2
@KG
Relatively few people travel by air. Some poor people may not have bank accounts. Relatively few people are affected by hospital visiting rules. None of these are a basic democratic right under our Constitution.
On the other hand, voter ID laws have definitely disenfranchised people and violated their civil rights. An unusual case is the 90 year old nun who had no birth certificate. Every one who is unjustly not allowed to vote is a reason to do away with voter ID laws.
Since the case has NOT been made for the necessity of voter ID laws, they should not be the default.
Make all the other changes first to facilitate voting by as many people as possible.
Then do the research to see if voter fraud has become an issue.
The election process--maintaining up to date voter rolls, properly trained poll workers, and putting more funding and effort into running elections--should be the priority.
Hmm. So according to the experts, voter ID laws would not be effective, but they would be costly and be an insult to certain minorities.
That sounds an awful lot like a wall.
8
I live in New Jersey and have voted in NJ most of my life. I was registered to vote when I obtained my Driver's License and voted in every election. The process was easy, go to the polling place and sign your name beneath your registered signature.
In Florida, it does require an ID, show your ID and you are handed a ballot or request a ballot by mail. There was much hysteria, in the last election, caused by trump. But there is no rampant voter fraud in Florida, you need an ID which is matched to your name and address. You can't just change your hat and your shirt and vote again, under what name and confirmed by what ID?
1
This is picking on a marginal aspect of the problem. Republicans have been consistently suppressing the minority vote for years. Voter id laws may not work very well, but removing voters from the roles as felons works real well. That's how we got our worst president ever before Trump. Losing registrations works pretty well too. That likely determined the governor's race in Georgia. Turns out stealing absentee ballots will get you caught, so the outcome in one district from the last election is still undecided. The thing to note is that all the bad stuff is done by Republicans who do not believe in democracy.
8
Forgotten is another thing... voter roll purges. Jeb Bush led one in 2000, removing thousands from the Florida rolls. That was more than the margin of "victory" for Bush.
9
Like "The Wall" I'm sure voter ID has been floating around out there in conspiracy land for years. It really seemed to catch on in the years after 2008. Most of the state voter ID laws were passed between 2008 and 2016. I'm not sure why.
4
@Karen Thornton
I think you mean that tongue in cheek.
But just in case you were really asking: 5 letter word beginning with O!
@Karen Thornton
:) Tongue in cheek?
1
INDIA'S ID CARD POINTS THE WAY
India is testing for the world a most difficult job of identifying every citizen and providing for his proof of identity for the purposes of managing government programs. It is called the Aadhaar card, a biometric, digital and physical identity system.
If this can be done for the poor in India, it can be done in the US.
Implementing a program like this would force a solution to the undocumented alien issue, which would be constructive.
2
Just because it can be done doesn’t mean it should.
1
I'm surprised that some conservatives still fear that the Chicago machine or Tammany Hall is engineering massive voter fraud; I thought it was just demagogues ranting about thousands of impostors from Central America being sneaked ashore from submarines in the middle of the night. But then, some New Yorkers really do blame Mayor Lindsay whenever there's two of inches of snow on the ground (he left office in '73).
For consideration: Would it be acceptable for someone claiming your identity to walk into your bank and withdraw the contents of your accounts without producing ID?
@Lee
Banks no longer use signature cards. That's why you produce a picture ID. A picture ID which in most cases you stopped resembling years ago.
Since voter fraud is not enough of a problem to waste time and effort solving, it would be better to focus on improving the way elections are carried out and removing the procedures, obsolete equipment, rules and other obstacles that frustrate voters and reduce participation.
“modest, if any, turnout effects of voter identification laws” in the best research on the subject. So a voter ID requirement might possibly affect the closest of close races,"
duh. that's the point. a little theft in a close election is what it's all about. I do not believe I have voted in a free and fair election since 1992. republicans ARE promoting a fraudulent argument about illegal voters that truly is statistically nil. we are lost as a nation if we reward these liars.
6
So voter ID laws might make a difference in only the "closest" races? Like the 2016 presidential races in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan?
4
Any one remember freedom? I mean freedom as experienced by those who fought for the country and wrote the Constitution?
Even 30 years ago American freedom won an exchange in a movie that haunts me every time this discussion national IDs and the like that amounts to the "papers" we associated with people who weren't free to go and do as they please.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: I will live in Montana. And I will marry a round American woman and raise rabbits, and she will cook them for me. And I will have a pickup truck... maybe even a "recreational vehicle." And drive from state to state. Do they let you do that?
Captain Ramius: Oh, yes.
Capt. Vasili Borodin: No papers?
Captain Ramius: No papers, state to state.
I expect many will remember the scene, now seemingly quaint, from the "Hunt for Red October"
America. The place of no papers. Freedom.
2
The subtext of the scene was about the Soviet government controlling where you lived. You could not move to a big city without approval. The “papers” were the internal visa stamps that said you could live there. It had nothing to do with carrying an ID, something expected of adults in practically every society.
Voting is more important than ordering take out, and if it takes an few minutes out of your busy day and a little preparation, isn’t that to be encouraged so that people take it seriously? If you want to protect the status quo by encouraging the uniformed to participate and stay uninformed, keep beating this drum.
@SAL
No matter how "informed" you are, if you have no government issued ID (and about 11% of eligible voters do not) you are being discriminated against.
Our Constitution says nothing about only well informed people having the right to vote. In fact all kinds of uninformed people vote all the time.
1
@Stephanie. - If you can get an id, that is not discrimination anymore than a city requiring a person get a license to hold a parade to express first amendment views is discrimination.
What are these adults going to do when they want to collect social security or use Medicare? It would behoove them to work on that ID problem now.
1. The occurrence of actual fraudulent votes is so minuscule as to be a non-issue in itself.
2. The manipulation of voting results by refusing to count ballots, losing ballots by far swamps the effect of fraudulent votes. (Remember the hanging chad?)
3. States like New York require that each voter sign a register to obtain a ballot to vote. That process prevents fraudulent votes - one name, one vote.
4. The study you cite of the only-weak-effect on voter turnout of requirement for a voter is on incomplete.
A large number of U.S. voters such as our Latino population who are citizens are under-represented because many are literally afraid to register and afraid to vote.
Their fear is that by bringing their name to the attention of authorities they will invite a visit from ICE who will then deport other family members who are not Citizens.
Hold in abeyance the debate on what should be done with undocumented immigrants.
5. Instead, note that in America," the greatest democracy on earth" some citizens are not represented in our government and do not vote because the are afraid to vote.
What made our country great is the strength of our rambunctious, arguing, mix of all kinds of people
Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
In the U.S. some citizens are afraid to vote.
1
Blah blah blah blah.
Show me validated statistics proving that there is a meaningful number of people who are:
1) Legally eligible to vote by right of citizenship or legal residence
2) Do not have ID's
3) Cannot get IDs
And describe the demographics of this subset of America.
Until someone shows me proof - not rumor or guesses - that a meaningful number of persons other than illegal residents and convicted criminals will be excluded from voting, I will continue to support requiring an IDs for voter registration.
2
@Objectivist
Sorry, you've got it backwards.
If you want to impose mandatory voter IDs, the burden of proof for such a need lies with you.
@Rex7
Actually, no, it isn't.
This sort of law protects the Constitutional rights of all legal voters by ensuring that their vote is not nullified by an illegal voter.
Because it can be proved to cause no harm to all persons legally entitled to vote, the burden of proof is on the left wingers who want to empower illegal immigrant voting.
I can’t get on a plane without a photo ID. I need a photo ID to cash a check. I recently had an MRI and needed to show a photo ID. Last time I was in the New York Times building I needed a photo ID to get past the security booth. IDs are essential for life in the United States. For all the time and effort screaming at each other over this issue, we could easily afford ,as a country , to get ID’s in the hands of the tiny minority of people who don’t have them. If Democrats were more interested in the lives of these unfortunate people rather than in their votes, we would’ve had a solution along time ago.
2
@bill
None of the activities you list are Constitutionally-guaranteed rights.
Furthermore, in order to vote in my state you are required to sign your name immediately below a facsimile of the signature on your registration card. So, in order to cast a fraudulent vote in my state, you'd need to be able to walk into a polling place and execute a convincing forgery of a specific registered voter's signature, and do it in front of a witness.
Please explain to me again why we need any other form of ID to vote.
It is pretty easy if you commit fraud while registering to vote. Two fraudulent signatures do not prove anything.
Voter ID is great... implement it everywhere!
But an ID should be more publicly available than a Big Mac.
---
It sounds sensible on the surface to require ID for something as powerful as voting... and all things being equal, it is... the real problem with these laws is that they make it nearly impossible to get an ID in a timely fashion in states that require ID for voting. That's where the suppression seeps in.
Until ID is universally available without a ton of red tape or obfuscation, voter ID laws disenfranchise.
Nice to see a little rationality on this issue! Let's get all whipped up about things that DO matter. Georgia comes to mind...
All of these facts aside, I still think that if every American citizen of voting age voted, the republican party would cease to exist.
1
@Jim Tagley
And the elders of the republican party know this and strive to keep turnout to a minimum. What's the old adage for election day? Good weather democrats win. Rainy day republicans win.
The numbers are not the issue Mr. Douthat. It's the immorality and even the illegality of the Republicans.
So a study by economists (!) finds no problems with voting. I guess that's good. Meanwhile, what does your tax accountant think about military spending? What do America's mechanics think we should do about the middle east? I'm glad Ross's view from atop the elephant in the room is so rosy. Is the elephant's name "gerrymandering" by any chance?
1
data seems clear; despite years of fear mongering and divisive attacks against such laws, they are a yawn.
The liberal attack mobs have cried about net neutrality; the net was fine before its passage and unchanged after.
The liberal attack mobs feigned outrage about Judge Kavanaugh's high school era accusation; anything to try to stop his confirmation despite his esteemed credentials.
When will we progressive stand up for intellectual honesty and believe our own gut and intellect, rather than propaganda?
1
@Joe Yoh
Propaganda?
As in "millions of illegal aliens cast ballots in 2016, and that's the only reason that Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes." Is that the kind of propaganda you're referring to?
About 20 years ago my father gave up his driver's license because he acknowledged that he was too old to drive. About a month later my state's Republican government announced that people would have to show their driver's licenses in order to vote. In other words, the Republicans had taken away my father's voting rights.
It was only later, after a lot of criticism, that the Republicans announced that they would have to come up with alternative ID systems because not everybody has a driver's license. The most charitable interpretation of their blunder was that, like the idiot Commerce Secretary who thought anybody could get a loan, the Republicans thought everybody had driver's licenses. A less charitable explanation was that they were trying to rig elections by keeping people from voting.
A recent poll showed that our new governor has a dismal approval rating, even though he just took office and hasn't had a chance to do anything wrong. Why is his approval rating so much lower than the percentage of the electorate that supposedly voted for him two months earlier? I suspect that the election was rigged.
This sort of thing needs to be talked about.
2
Slave State Conservatives continuously and repeatedly work to suppress the vote, and have done so since the founding of our nation.
Slaves couldn't vote, and after the Civil War and the end of the Reconstruction they couldn't vote, due to lynchings, Jim Crow Laws and Poll Taxes.
When the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts were passed under Democratic president LBJ, Slave State Conservatives fled from the Democratic party in horror that they had been betrayed by fellow Democrat Lyndon Johnson. They never forgave him, or the Democrats, for ending segregation.
After notable attempts by racists like George Wallace in 1968, the Slave State Conservatives found a new home in the Republican party, where they continued to try to suppress voting rights and rail against the Democratic Party that betrayed them in 1965.
Gerrymandering, closing voting stations, using specious claims of voter fraud and intimidation with threats of violence all continue as tools in he toolbox of Slave State Republicans. It is no mistake that Lindsey Graham took over the SC Senate seat of famous segregationist Strom Thurmond, or that Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama rails continuously and repeatedly about the 'brown menace' South of the border, because they cannot openly discriminate against against African Americans anymore.
It's time to finish Reconstruction.
1
@UTBG
Excellent comment, I have but one thing to add: when the Slave State Conservatives decamped to the Republican Party, that party welcomed them with open arms. They’d already figured out that they couldn't win fair elections based on economic policy, or even foreign policy.
1
Look, voter ID laws are merely one tool the GOP uses to inhibit voting by their opponents. Court cases in North Carolina and Texas made the GOP's intent abundantly clear. Stop trying to cover it up, Ross.
1
Of course the right is sincere in Ross mind, they always are.
GOP is doing a lot more than voter ID to suppress the vote. Voter ID is the thing they get you with after you clear the other hurdles.
1
Once in a blue moon, Ross Douthat writes something interesting . . . but this isn't one of those times. From his curt dismissal of civil discourse in the opening paragraph to his blithe confidence that a few votes don't matter where a national election turned on a few thousand votes in each of three states, this is tripe. Large scale voter fraud is unsupported by any credible evidence, and a demand for voter ID laws suppress votes and are a gateway to further actions. That they apparently suppress only a few votes is reassuring (although one study proves nothing), but every citizen has a constitutional right to vote. That discussion of large scale voter fraud serve to get out vote for Republicans by stoking their fears is never mention. Bad show.
There isn't a "polarized debate."
There's one side lying in order to perpetrate a campaign of voter suppression, and another side still based in reality who rejects the lies.
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
That's like saying much of America's anxiety about Communists infiltrating the government in the McCarthy era was sincere. I.e., a platitude.
Interesting. But, if it is true that gerrymandering is still 'standing tall', and the obnoxiousness of cutting down time and space to ease voting, then it pays to remain vigilant and at least seek less interference by a "Citizens United' type of scam, or absent voting seen recently. Stuffing the ballots seems plain fantasy however, malevolent though to inflame the 'masses'. A true democracy would do all it can to making voting as automatic as possible, with no impossible hoops to jump. OH, forgot to ask you about the most anti-democratic remnant of a privileged minority, the Electoral College,that gave the victory to a most unrepresentative thug...in spite of losing the popular vote.
Well if Enrico Cantoni and Vincent Pons found there is no effect on turnout, I'm convinced.
1
This article is disingenuous at best. AT BEST!!
Putting the findings of this one study aside, it is obviously true that "conservatives" want to make it harder to vote. They want to do this because they know that if it is easy to vote, more people who don't normally vote - for whatever reason, i.e. childcare, work, indifference - will vote. And THOSE people are more likely to vote for "liberals."
What frustrates me is, as Mr. Douthat does here, is the "conservative" disingenuousness of it all. Just say - we don't want poor people and people of color to vote. I'd have much more respect for your honest racism and classism than this equivocation that it's something really good for the country and we should set limits to how and when and where people vote.
Or am I imagining that Mitch McConnell stood on the floor of the Senate and said that letting more people vote was a "power grab" by the Democrats? Am I the only one who heard his brief slip into honesty?
You guys - by this I mean Douthat and his ilk - don't want people to vote. If you could bring back the poll tax and racist "tests" they had here in the South, you'd do it. Just admit it. I think that if we could be honest with one another, THAT might be a better starting point than simply saying, oh, it's really not THAT big of a problem.
What Ross Douthat doesn't point out, at least very clearly, are that Voter ID laws were created to solve a problem, Voter Fraud, that doesn't exist. This has been proved by many, many more studies then the 1-one that Douthat cites.
229
@Mike I don't think you read the article. He explicitly said that despite many attempts to find voter fraud, little existed.
8
@J. Waddell
But isn't that his point? If Voter ID wasn't created to counter voter fraud, which doesn't exist, then why is it instituted. Why go to the trouble? There must be a reason. Work it out to its logical conclusion and you can only conclude that it's to suppress some people.
26
@Mike Seriously? A leading conservative pundit offers solid evidence that voter fraud is insignificant; points out that prosecutions for voter fraud catch only confused individuals; and EXPLICITLY points at the Republican Party to tell them they have the greater obligation to stand down on this issue--and you complain that he didn't cite enough research to back up a point on which HE AGREES WITH YOU?
Give it a break. Voter fraud may not be a problem, but knee-jerk partisan hostility sure is.
13
You ignore the existential question: Does our democracy rest on all the people or only on the "right" people? Voter ID is just another subterfuge for the perennial claim that some are more qualified to speak than others. It is anti-democratic to the core.
2
"So a voter ID requirement might possibly effect the closest of close races, based on what we’ve learned up till now — but if the Cantoni and Pons results hold up, the real effect is basically nil." This is a nice sentiment from the conservative ivory tower. Now, imagine yourself old, a minority, perhaps a veteran, who has voted in every election, but must now obtain a new ID from a government office hours away by car because the Republican legislature has closed the offices nearest you, and to further obtain the ID you must seek to obtain government documents that may be difficult and expensive to obtain or even unavailable (if you were born at home and not in a hospital, probably no birth certificate had been issued). Or imagine that you are younger, with a family, engaged in work where to take time off to obtain an ID from an office that is only open two or three workdays a week requires that you forego pay for that absent time, which you cannot afford to do. There is something else at play here which goes beyond "the real effect" (thus far) of an election result. It is simply contemptible that in a serious democracy and republic people in power, in order to stay in power, would actively strive to disenfranchise American citizens and discourage the vote, particularly where this country hardly sets records for voter turnout as it is. In theory, voter ID requirements are fine, but the Republican purpose behind them and their effect is disgusting beyond words.
5
If every person who was angry about voter ID laws helped one individual register and vote there would be bigger turn-out, not less.
Next time you hear someone complain about voter ID laws ask them what they have done to help people vote. The answer will be 'nothing.' It is an issue to complain about.
35
@WillT26 The "anger" over voter ID may not be the actual ID requirement itself. I'm not against the it myself per se. The anger is making the job of obtaining the document as difficlut as possible, which really wasn't a problem until the Supreme Court's 2012 rulings concerning the 1965 Voting Right's Act. Then came the DMV closings and/or reduced days and hours, mostly nearest minority communities . Then came the voter roll purges, the continued limitations on early voting, the North Dakota disgrace re their Indigenous American tribes, "suspicious" T crossings and I dottings on the applications, and general goalpost movements. As we have seen, including the lies about "rampant" voter fraud, were certainly was not limited to the Southern states. Some states even considered a charge for the ID until they realized that it could be interpreted as a poll tax. Making it tough to the point of losing wages get the ID certainly suppressed the vote in favor of Republicans, as the Heritage Foundation's Jim DeMint freely admitted. And let's not forget the reduced number of booths and voting locations on Election Day, in the bogus excuse of fiscal responsibility. Remember the lines??
You want people to "help" rather than make it as easy as it was to obtain an ID before 2012? People do help actually when their buses of folks aren't pulled over by the local police. None of this is right, even if you failed to mention how much you yourself help folks to get the proper papers.
207
@WillT26
One citizen, one vote. Not, make it hard for some people and blame them for not having personal advocates.
27
@Lori
I live in a neighborhood where most people vote and there are no lines to vote. I'm not sure how I can help one person vote more easily if that person does not have a driver's license because they do not drive or if that person lives in an area where they have to wait for many hours to vote.
10
Dear Mr. Douthat: You have glossed over (failed to mention) the recently raised proposal to declare Election Day a National holiday and discuss why Mitch McConnell has called that a Left wing power grab.
Why is that and why have you ignored the issue? Doesn't that imply that Republicans are hellbent on suppressing the minority vote?
You may disagree, but I cannot help but make the inference.
5
"For as long as I’ve been politically conscious, conservatives have touted tougher identification requirements at the polls as a means to fight the scourge of voter fraud, and over the last decade Republicans have successfully implemented voter ID laws in a number of reddish states."
Whadaya know...an entire NYT opinion piece based on "the scourge of voter fraud" myth. Who hired this guy?
1
What the author and the study dont acknowledge is one the history of voter suppresion in any form. Specifically the moving and closing of polling places, the requirement that registration take place at obscure offices that are deliberately under staffed and open for short periods of time. By couching it in terms of ID alone is dissemblement of the highest order.
2
There's a HUGE point you're missing here. The new voter ID laws, the ones that you say don't effect actual voting, are the ones that have withstood Constitutional scrutiny by by Federal Judiciary. You know, the third or fourth try for most states. The states where their first try Voter ID law as struck down as being "obviously targeted at African Americans on its face", and where the second try was similarly rejected.
The only new laws that are included in this study are those that the Federal Judiciary has approved as being non-discriminatory. So, these studies found there weren't any obviously discriminatory results from these new laws? The (unstated) fact that the Federal Judiciary did it's job well is news?
1
I would have agreed with this op-ed last year. That was before I spent 4 hours with my daughter waiting in like to get a state ID at the North Carolina DMV.
3
I am well into my graying years and still have to show an ID to buy a bottle of wine at my local grocery store. Laughable, but they ask for it and I produce it. Not sure why that should be a problem if I want to engage in one of my most important civic tasks -- voting. I agree that the controversy over voter ID is largely calculated political theater.
35
You have to show ID to get a job, to rent a car, to use your health insurance, to buy alcohol or certain over the counter medication or spray paint, and to enter a school to pick up your kid. When turnout is consistently under 50% without ID requirements, we worry about ID affecting voting?
4
@John Jabo
Simple, actually. The buying of a bottle of wine, as with the license to drive a car, isn't a fundamental right guaranteed to citizens of this republic. Anybody ever see anything about either of those in the Constitution? Don't think so. ;)
104
@John Jabo If the government made it extremely difficult for you to obtain the form of ID required before you could buy your bottle of wine, you might feel differently.
93
When the state closes the places to get the IDs, reduces their hours of operation and closes them for the weekend, they make it difficult to vote
When they allow gun licenses but not student id, they choose their voters
When states purge voters from the rolls for not voting in the prior election but still collecting state and property taxes the state makes it difficult to vote
None of the states that try to limit voters participation are states with the highest voter turnout. Why is that?
689
When you thin voter rolls, you thin jury pools. And that affects justice.
42
@Julio Wong
I feel sure that's just another side benefit for the republicans.
11
Underlying the rhetoric in all this is the Possibility of voter fraud (which was once quite common in America) vs. the Principle that any citizen who is entitled to vote should be allowed to do so.
Ever leave your wallet or purse at home by mistake? I have been a Republican precinct election official in every election since 2010, watched perhaps 20,000 votes cast, but never yet have I seen any situation where voter ID would have helped, except for the PA rule that first-time voters must show one. The signatures we require instead are legally binding, and proven fraud is punishable. Voter IDs is the fraud. It is an encumbrance that would not help us run elections, but could keep good folks from voting.
4
The study is behind a pay wall so I'm not able to critique it directly. However, the actual question is whether or not whether turnout is affected but whether turnout in specific elections is affected. With a senate majority of 4 votes, just getting the turnout suppressed in a few states - Texas or Georgia would be enought to make a seismic shift in our political climate. It's not so much an overall effect that's important, it's the distribution of effects that matters. Again, love to read the paper.
6
I missed the section where you explained the almost all the persons convicted of Voter Fraud were registered Republicans, and voted the GOP ticket. Convenient.
7
typical GOP double-speak: yes, the Republicans have suppressed voter turnout, therefore either the Democrats have done the same, or else they complain too much about it. "Chicago machine" tactics were a real issue back in the day (or see how LBJ won the Senate primary in 1948). Today's voter manipulation is much more subtle. Even Dixie states don't ask people of color "how many bubbles are there in a bar of soap?" But the motives are the same.
4
Voter ID has always and everywhere been required. The new laws simply make it harder for a lot of people to identify themselves than it used to be. They place a unequal burden on some people, and even if that burden has not produced a significant decline in their participation, it remains a burden. It should not cost one person more to vote than it costs another. And it should not be harder in one state than another, as it clearly is now.
It is perhaps a bit disingenuous of Douthat to say, now, that it is time to call a truce. The tide is turning, and I doubt there is much farther that the GOP could take this issue. "Calling a truce" now might be seen as conceding defeat on the part of voter-rights advocates.
"The GOP has pushed these laws, in most cases gotten them, but they haven't worked very well to suppress the vote. So let's move on." That doesn't sound like much of a truce.
Though Douthat may be right, the real threat is not that qualified voters in large enough numbers to matter will be denied the right to vote. The real threat is that they will be discouraged for disabled from voting not by their lack of ID, but by the difficulty they have getting to their assigned polling station and remaining long enough to vote, what with closed polling stations, restrictions on early and absentee voting, etc.
3
I believe studies have shown that more data is primarily used by each side to entrench further and develop more sophisticated counterarguments. There is not a lot of good evidence that data (assuming the validity of those cited) changes minds much
It is odd and contradictory that the public is urged to go out and vote, as elections may be very close, and every vote counts and may make the difference between who wins and who loses.......
and then we are also told that a few invalid voters participating in the process really makes no difference.
2
Because there are so few
It seems next to impossible to separate voter id requirements that the right is pushing from their general goal of suppressing votes of people whose dignity and passion they are terrified of. They see it as a seamless garment where one loose thread could unravel their whole miserable undertaking.
5
Has anyone considered national ID cards? They are common in most countries and often used for voter identification. A national ID card can also do double duty as a secure and accurate e-verify document.
Almost every country in Europe issues a national ID card, why can’t we?
1
@Joe C. It's been proposed over & over again, but the privacy police always quash it.
As they should. There is no need for a national id. It would be just a very expensive boondoggle designed to enrich the winning vendor who gets to manufacture it.
Real IDs are sufficient.
Because the paranoid conspiracy theorists will jump on the proposal and scream that big brother is watching.
Never mind that big brother has been able to watch for many years: computers, cellphones, credit cards etc. All of them leave a trail of electronic “bread crumbs “.
Stop using numbers that contradict the narrative! It gets in the way from my truth!
Chicago and L.A. have Scandinavian level turn out. Having lived in Chicago for 10+ years, and also in Sweden and Canada - I still find this hard to believe. L.A. has barbed wire around their traffic signs - and that is not a sign of civic engagement.
Just more false equivalency, "on the one hand, then the other" in a column that tries to appear even-handed, but doesn't. Look at Georgia and tell me Kemp, who as secretary of state was in charge of that state's gubernatorial election, didn't steal it.
12
@Christy
The fallacy of the false dichotomy, Douthat's grist mill.
Which is more onerous-voter suppression in the form of voter identification or the extreme partisan gerrymandering?
The results of either do favor the party initiating either action, or both.
7
Our vote by mail in Oregon works well. I need to take the initiative to register, then maintain an address where the letter carrier can actually find me. Real Person. Just One of Me. Lives in State. And I never have to stand in a line.
7
Exactly. And that's why GOP doesn't want anything like that!
1
@Steve W. Same here in Washington. What’s wrong with the rest of the country?
I have had enough arguments with fellow conservatives on this issue to attest that the specter of those old Chicago operations haunts the right, along with more contemporary fears generated by a left that really does want to extend some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Studies showing that rampant (even marginal) voter fraud does not and has not been occurring have been around for a long time. Conservatives care little for facts in this and other cases (climate change, abortion, immigration (caravans of villains at the gate)). It seems silly that Mr. Douthat holds hope that his fellow conservatives will finally believe this study. Facts don't matter Mr. Douthat, at least on your side.
10
It's always seemed to me that the real problem is that valid government IDs are both expensive and time consuming to get. Reduce the cost to something marginal like $10. Let people schedule an appointment online ahead of time and even give them the option of mailing in their documents ahead of time so all they have to do is show up for 15 minutes. Frankly it seems like common sense that if you have show an ID to enter a bar or buy cigarettes you should also have to show an ID if you want to choose the leader of the free world. But getting that ID shouldn't be the painful process it currently is.
2
@JP In my home state I have the opportunity to register to vote on-line and to vote by mail. No identification needed and there has been little to no dog whistles and gas lighting over fraud. And my home state is very, very red.
At times I believe the fraud claimed by the politicians is not committed at the polling station but by the candidates and parties themselves.
Thus, the need for voter identification is based on an extremely small population in the sample size. So, is it cost effective for the voter and the government to react to a problem that is small in comparison to other issues?
Which party wants fewer, rather than more American citizens to participate in elections?
The answer should tell anyone with a even modicum of intelligence which party can't win truly fair and democratic elections and make it easy to understand why there’s so much furor on the right over the alleged but actually almost nonexistent problem of voter fraud, and so much support for voter ID laws that make it hard for the poor and even the working class to cast ballots, and for gerrymandering that assures minority rule.
GOP politicians don’t dare say outright that only Republicans should have political rights, (as Donald Trump already has), at least not yet. But if you follow the current actions prevalent on the political right to their logical conclusion, that’s where you end up. The truth is that what’s going on in American politics is, at root, a fight between democracy and autocratic plutocracy. And the plutocrats know exactly how to use hate and tea party run state legislatures to accomplish their goal
10
Talk about your cherry-picking to ignore the broader problem. In Georgia, North and South Carolina, and other states vote ID wasn't the problem. It was shortened polling hours, closed polls, fewer poll workers. All this led to long lines and frustrated voters (some of whom just went home), and it was all DELIBERATE. It's called voter suppression.
23
Great. Now we just have to work on other Republican efforts to influence the vote: gerrymandering, cuts to early voting, purging of voter rolls, and making it difficult for people to vote – like reducing the number of polling places.
Republicans have only one vision: winning at all costs. They won’t believe this study, and they will continue full bore with the other efforts to undercut democracy.
What Douthat needs to tell his conservative compatriots is not about matters of strategy – remember, they don’t believe in “facts” or evidence; it falls on deaf ears. What they need to hear about is morality and the ethics of fair elections….oh, wait…they don’t care about ethics either…
Sorry Ross. If the study is true, it is easy for the Democrats to let go of the ID issue. But Republicans aren’t that rational - so it’s back to the drawing board.
12
GOP study initiated by President Bush proved that out of 1 billion votes the documented number of voter fraud was 31.
Judge Posner is a card-carrying conservative who was appointed to the circuit bench by Ronald Reagan in 1981. He's widely regarded as the smartest jurist in the federal judiciary, and was identified as the most-cited legal scholar of all time.
From Judge Posner:
"There is compelling evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent."
Assertions about voter fraud are "a mere fig leaf for efforts to disenfranchise voters." He adds that "some of the 'evidence' of voter-impersonation fraud is downright goofy, if not paranoid, such as the nonexistent buses that according to the 'True the Vote' movement [a voter suppression organization originating in the tea party movement] transport foreigners and reservation Indians to polling places."
"Lists of the states that impose the strictest requirements "imply that a number of conservative states try to make it difficult for people who are outside the mainstream, whether because of poverty or race or problems with the English language...to vote." The Judge heard the case, examined the evidence and ruled on it. His ruling included his judicial opinion and the evidence that led to his opinion was tested in court. Douthat's. takeaway is merely conjecture designed to obfuscate the GOP further efforts to assure minority rule.
11
Republican in Pennsylvania and Georgia said that the voter ID laws would help them win elections. In private discussions that were recorded, they bragged about how these measures would suppress Democratic voters. In Georgia and elsewhere they have made it difficult for rural elderly, poor black voter to get an ID. Douthat apparently does not believe the Republicans even when they themselves say what they are up to.
9
I suggest reading 2018 book Carol Anderson’s One Person, No Vote: How Voter Supression is Destroying our Democracy. Anderson’s thorough yet concise book details many methods by which voters are being disenfranchised across the United States. She writes about gerrymandering, purging of voter registration rolls, complicated changes in voter ID laws, the lack of resources in communities of color resulting in reduced number of polling places, and even the removal of ramps prohibiting wheelchair users’ easy access to the voting booth.
5
Here in Wisconsin, Republicans were more devious in their suppression attempts. They knew full well that many university ID’s did not have an expiration date or address, so they explicitly wrote a law requiring both in an attempt to hinder college students from voting. So let’s not give the GOP a pass by saying these laws are only about combating non-existent voter fraud.
8
Typical “both-sides-ism” from Douthat, a tactic likely required so that his rightist readers will continue to respect him. But those of us in states —like Wisconsin — know better than to believe that this is a tempest in a teapot. In Wisconsin, voter suppression was a clear and admitted tactic among the Republicans who passed the laws that restrict voting. (Republicans openly admitted they would stay in power after voter ID). Trump won by a slim margin, as everyone now knows.
Contrary to his one study, a reputable study here showed that in one populous county, many thousands didn’t vote because of the effects of the laws. One effect is that some people didn’t even try to vote because they assumed they didn’t have a proper ID, when in fact they did have an acceptable ID. Every vote matters in closely divided states like Wisconsin. Our current governor won by just 1%.
What Douthat also leaves out is how hard organizations and individuals have had to work to recreate the a new voting infrastructure (education, advocacy, outreach) that these cynical Republican laws have made necessary. Republican policies are a tax on civic-minded people, as I see it.
The real problem in this country is how few people vote. I dare Douthat to write a column about that —that is, if he really cares about the issue.
12
Mitch McConnell thinks that making voting day a holiday is a "power grab" by Democrats. It would be laughable were it not so disingenuous and dangerous. Thinking that he would back off *any* GOP method of voter suppression is, sadly, a pipe dream.
11
A neat article, Mr. Douthat. It tested me with a couple of questions, the first being, can I finish an article about something the author says is a non-problem? I did! The second question, though, is how much of the energy around this issue is for the purpose of generating energy around the issue rather than for solving a supposed problem? If your article and the study you reference move the needle, I will be pleasantly surprised.
3
Voter fraud claims are counterfactuals - you can't prove something has occurred given the lack of testing ability to assess if it could have occurred.
I personally think it is a bogus claim - but this idea that it has been 'proven'; is without merit.
4
Every time I have gone to vote over the past 19 years I have had in my possession, at least two forms of photo ID (DoD military retirement ID and Drivers License). I have had these out and ready to share. Occasionally, the staff have glimpsed at them but most often they have said they were not needed. I am quite certain that this ignoring of my IDs has nothing to do with my being an elderly Caucasian bald man. However, I often wonder how many fellow citizen of color have the same experience.
The recent book, One Person, No Vote seems to differ with the study cited in this paper by Mr Douthat. It provides numerous incidents in which voter registration is made onerous in order to diminish voting by poor and by citizens of color.
7
@Ed Haines
Just for the heck of it once about 15-20 years ago I gave the poll workers my DOD-retired ID. They wouldn't accept it, & insisted on my driver's license. Being an elderly Caucasian bald man myself I got a real chuckle out of it when it happened. :) I of course do indeed fully concur with your observations.
@Ed Haines: Where do you live? In New York, ID is not required, just a signature matching the one in the registration book. An election inspector may look at an ID, if the voter offers it, because that's sometimes easier than asking the voter to spell his name in a noisy room.
Thomas, I live in Pennsylvania. Yes, they have us sign the ledger as you describe. How do they know I am not actually my neighbor?
Mr. Douthat has repeatedly mentioned the specter fo Democratic political machines as a sincere reason Republicans fear fraud.
Let's put aside the argument that, even if Republicans are genuinely afraid of historical phantoms from nearly half a century ago, we need not respect a fear of ghosts simply because it is sincerely held. My daughter seems sincerely afraid of monsters in her closet; I'll check for beasties every night, but I'm not about to hammer the closet shut because her fear isn't cynical ploy.
Instead, I'm curious why Democrats don't seem haunted by the specters of Republican political machines. Machines, such as the ones run by George "Boss" Cox in Cincinnati, John McClure in Pennsylvania, and Joseph Margiotta in New York, were Republican affairs. Admittedly, none of those lasted as long at the Daley machine - but, then again, no machine did: after the 1940s, Chicago was really the last truly powerful machine.
So, given that the golden age of machine politics was bipartisan, why are Republicans the only party that seems to let the dead political structures of the that century lead them on quixotic regulatory misadventures today?
6
@MJB Because they know they cannot win in fair elections.
1
Michigan driver's licenses and state-issued i.d. cards have a magnetic strip that identifies the voter. Using such i.d. at a polling place eliminates the need to look up voters on a paper print-out, check their names off a list, etc. In short, it reduces the length of voter lines. In high turnout national elections, that can be a substantial time saver. In the absence of universal mail-in voting, voluntary use of bar-coded or other machine-readable identification could help, not hinder, turnout.
2
Many of us are old enough to remember when driver's licenses contained no photos. How on earth could any election in our country's first 200 years be considered legitimate without requiring personal pictures?
Now, more than 10 million voting eligible citizens have no photo I.D., and they generally skew Democratic when it come to politics.
Douthat's point that only extremely close elections are impacted by I.D. laws only underscores the reality that we've had numerous extremely close elections in recent times.
There were 5 states where the margin of victory in the 2016 presidential election was less than 1% - - and Trump won 4 of them! (NH, the sole exception, had the fewest electoral votes). Voter suppression is real; voter fraud is not.
29
The evidence of the study is not helpful because the people who need to understand it most live in a world that has no evidence, only opinions.
The GOP is fully post-modern; facts do not exist.
16
I haven't read the study (Mr. Douthat's piece links to the abstract, which he fairly describes in his article). It may well be true that voter ID laws, by themselves, have minimal impact on voter turnout. It seems even more likely that they have minimal impact on in-person voter fraud, since that has never been a significant problem in U.S. elections.
The problem, as Mr. Douthat alludes, is that voter ID is just part of a cluster of laws that Republicans have adopted to suppress anti-GOP votes. It is the collective impact of all of such laws that impedes the ability of marginalized citizens to vote. Laws that limit early voting, prevent special registrars from registering voters at libraries and college campuses and a host of other restrictions. All designed to make voting difficult.
The 4th federal circuit concluded such laws attacked anti-GOP voters "with surgical precision". A 3-judge federal panel examining Wisconsin's laws concluded they were designed "to entrench the Republican Party in power."
The results? In my state (Wisconsin), voter turnout in 2016 was down by over 90,000, the largest numerical decline in the country (one of only 5 states with fewer votes cast--despite a marquee senate race alongside the presidential contest). Almost half of those reduced votes were in the Democratic city of Milwaukee. Mr. Trump won our state by only 20,000 votes.
Widespread in person voter fraud is a myth. Widespread voter suppression in my state is true.
39
When we see long lines and waiting times of hours to vote, in districts where the number of polling places have been reduced to the bare bone (and ONLY in poor or minority districts -- what a coincidence), it's hard to dismiss that the intent here is to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters.
That these measures do not overall reduce voting by any particular group is not surprising, given that there are many more places where these attempts are NOT in place. But the locations where they ARE in place, they are inevitably in swing states/districts where the voting is expected to be very close, and that can have an outsized effect on both local and national contests.
We still need to be vigilant and demand that these voter-unfriendly practices be eliminated.
9
As proven, voter fraud is is nothing but humbug. The man in the Oval even established a voter fraud panel after declaring he'd have won the popular vote had not millions of illegals voted.
After I changed my voter registration to a new state, I found out that more than a year later I was still registered in two states and my husband as well.
I called the office of the the county is was registered in prior to moving to tell them that I don't reside there anymore and to take me off the voter roll. The answer was that the county I was now registered in has inform them to take me off their list.
The problem is with the counties that never do. My husband was even registered in three states at that time.
Yes, we could have voted during elections by absentee ballot in numerous states. Did we do it? NO!
7
Sorry Ross, but anyone who discusses possible minimal effects of voter ID laws on turnout without tying their institution to other voter suppression efforts--arbitrarily accepting some ID's and not others, challenging early and absentee voting, closing polling places in "less desirable" neighborhoods, and making "proper" ID's harder to get in the first place--are just being disingenuous and victim-blaming.
8
1. Economists are not Political Scientists
2. Economists with the exception of behavioral Economists ,do not recognize human motivation. It is all about the numbers.
3. Republican operatives have publicly stated the purpose of Voter ID laws it's to suppress Democratic Voter turn out.
4. The questionable proposition that Voter suppression has not been effective is irrelevant. It is still unconstitutional and it's an attack on our Democratic process.
5. The questionable finding that Voter suppression has not worked is equivalent to saying attempted robbery it's not a crime because the attempt was not successful
13
If I take your word on the veracity of the research, I am reassured that voter ID laws do not seem to have a large effect on voter turnout. That being said, my concern about the clear intent of the laws to disenfranchise marginalized voters remains in place, even if the laws are not working as intended. Your anecdotal tales of sincere Republican concern about voting fraud do not reassure--the lack of empirical evidence for widespread voter fraud is self-evident to serious observers, as you conceded. The bad faith assault on the Voting Rights Act by Republican-appointed jurists must be weighed in the balance while assessing the intent behind the laws. I am not prepared to forget about the whole thing at this point, any more than I would be if someone fired a gun at me but missed.
13
Right, the Republicans pushing voter ID laws are genuinely concerned about voter fraud. If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
The evidence is overwhelming: Republicans push voter ID laws because they believe such laws will suppress Democratic turnout. And that is reason enough to oppose all such laws. Period.
Douthat claims there are studies showing that voter ID laws do not have their intended effect. I hope that's true (but I'll want to review those studies for myself, thank you very much). In the meantime, Democrats should continue to push for the repeal of all laws intended to suppress voter turnout and otherwise make it more difficult for Democratic constituencies to cast their ballots.
7
Hopefully the conclusions of the study sighted by Douthat is correct. It doesn't negate the mantra of Republicans about voter fraud by "illegals" and others. The attack on voting rights, successful or not, by Republicans is not in the national interest.
6
So the argument is that the GOP can gain political advantage by ending support of voter ID laws? The moral here is that you can gain advantage by ending a problem you started in the first place. Our current president seems to excel at trying that.
8
Ross does a lot of talking about the trees, but I'm afraid he misses the forrest. I found the article to be largely balanced and fair, and I think Ross makes some strong arguments. But it is only in the final paragraphs that he articulates the fact that this hot-button issue is of the Republican's making. They are the ones forcing these legislative changes, and doing so without evidence that they are needed. So forgive me if I don't believe that there are "sincere" Republicans concerned about voter fraud. They are concerned only because the radical right has led them to believe they have reason to be concerned, they don't. And whether or not these ID laws have a material effect on elections is almost irrelevant. What matters is that we live in a democracy where one party is intent on making voting harder for its citizens. Who does that? Does any other democracy in the world make it harder to vote instead of easier? I will believe in "sincere" efforts to curb voter fraud when I meet a "sincere" Republican who can show me where the problem, requiring a legislative fix, actually exists. Until then, get your conservative friends to stand down Ross, and perhaps we can have a shot at a real truce.
10
The study is not freely available, so it’s difficult to assess. However, if 67% voter turnout is considered massive and many elections see less than 20%, then a study based on historical turnout misses the point.. If people who generally do not vote face further barriers, the effect is still one of suppression. You can call it suppression of potential or just solidifying the majority’s position.
6
"The voter ID debate essentially involves Republicans whipping themselves into a panic over a problem that doesn’t meaningfully affect their chances of winning elections, and then passing laws that whip Democrats into a panic over a problem that also doesn’t meaningfully affect their chances of winning elections.
If it's a wash, as you write, Ross, will you tell your conservative pals about the findings in this study? Because Conservatives started this and still perpetuate the image of long lines of Maria Ortegas lining up to cast illegal Democratic ballots.
For every action, there's a (sometimes) commensurate reaction. Both sides of voter ID laws strike fear into hearts of ordinary Americans.
Just to be clear, are you advocating an end to these laws, or simply a truce on trumpeting what each side stands to gain so as to ensure net voting neutraility?
5
Addendum: Because if you aren't willing to end, them, that makes me suspect this whole piece, as I just don't believe Republicans do anything unless they stand to gain, and gain big.
3
If the Republican efforts at voter disenfranchisement are largely ineffective, that is good news!
But it is a fundamental right that each citizen can vote.
I hope this article is correct.
It does not change the fact that the Republicans have betrayed our country.
7
Dear Ross,
In general the analysis at the national level is correct. I think it comes down to state and local elections. As you say fears about Chicago under former Mayors are still there as there is fear about black voter suppression in many southern states. Look at Georgia’s last election. I think gerrymandering is a much more worrisome issue and will reach the Supreme Court soon.
4
Here’s what I know.
My late mother was conceived in Italy and born in the US in 1914. She had an eighth grade education and, having endured the Great Depression, was an FDR Democrat. She was an intelligent, astute, patriotic American and voted in every election.
My mother never got a driver’s license. She never had a state issued ID card. When she died, we never found a birth certificate. Although every state requires voters to prove their identity and citizenship, had Connecticut imposed the strict voter ID laws favored by the Trump/GOP, she would have been disenfranchised.
Had that happened, my sisters and I would have assisted her in getting the required ID. But many poor or elderly Americans do not have the family or financial resources to do that. We know empirically that these voter ID laws have disenfranchised citizens, including veterans.
So, perhaps these laws might change the outcome of only a few, extraordinarily close elections. But the right to vote is the most precious right a citizen has. Needlessly disenfranchising a citizen to address the non existent problem of voter fraud is a disgrace and a mortal sin against our Democratic ideals.
47
@Rich Casagrande
"the right to vote is the most precious right a citizen has"
Not for nothing, but i'd rank free speech, jury trials, etc. well above voting.
1
@jkw: Voting determines who's in office and has the ability to influence the existence of free speech and jury trials. Just look at today's Supreme Court, with a majority determined by justices nominated by a president who won office by a few very close margins in states that swung the Electoral College and confirmed by a Senate majority that refused to do its duty when a Democrat was in office.
6
@jkw
Without the right to vote it's unlikely you'd have free speech or jury trials.
2
As a volunteer town voting official of some tenure, I'm going to weigh in on the side of the author's conclusion. The process of actually voting is, in my experience, clean. What I've observed (but not experienced) are problems associated with a lack of polling places and with the use of machines rather than paper ballots. But overall, the process itself works, and efforts to discredit it are, in effect, efforts to destabilize the delicate tradition that we call democracy.
6
@tomc My first vote in New Hampshire didn't go very smoothly. I registered to vote using my MA driver's license and my mortgage statement. I had not received my NH driver's license when I went to vote so I brought my passport card. Well, I was on the voter rolls but the poll workers did not want to accept my passport card as ID. They had apparently been primed to look for voter fraud. Eventually a supervisor stepped in and gave me a ballot. No one seemed to be on the same page regarding the purpose of the photo ID--was it to confirm my identity or my address?
3
Those on the right may be “sincere” in their anxiety over voter fraud, but they are sincerely wrong. It is inaccurate to suggest those on the left want to give “illegal immigrants” a path to citizenship merely to have their votes. (There is such a thing as democratic and human values to consider.) Such conflation of myths is typical among the politically paranoid, which is a major problem with political bases of support on both sides but asymmetrically, enormously, hugely out of proportion on the right.
Mr. Douthat deserves credit for his few words buried within his op-Ed that “other” factors were not included in the voter ID study by Cantoni and Pons, specifically State election regulations (usually the purview of State Attorneys General) eliminating early voting, eliminating polling places, reducing the number of voting machines, “losing” tens of thousands of new voter registrations, and purging voter rolls, some seemingly indiscriminately. In other studies of which Mr. Douthat is likely aware, the number of votes deciding an election in individual precincts can be in the single digits. One can suggest attempts at purposeful election rigging with such legal but corrupt actions by State officials by their commonality.
As a scientist, I would suggest putting faith in one study to prove a point is a mistake. Definitely keep it in mind but it takes three data points, at least, to extrapolate trends with any confidence.
10
Republican leaders do not "whip themselves into a panic" about anything, although they aim to whip their followers into rage and panic in various ways. The leaders go about their aims systematical and cynically and do what is necessary to keep themselves in power.
By the way, the issue could be largely circumvented with a national ID. This is needed for several other reasons.
6
Republicans and Democrats. Democrats and Republicans. Blah blah blah. Before we get into the inevitable political issues each side will righteously espouse to further their own power goals, why don't we as Americans put each issue through a high-level filter? Any adults in the room?
First, is this good for America and does it make sense? Very basic and brings back common sense to the discussion. We can argue about the granular details about"what's good for America" based on political filters later.
What is good for America- Voting is a privilege, right, and obligation of citizenship. All would agree. It is not in the interest of America to have non-citizens vote. All would agree.
Common Sense- If only citizens of the United States can vote then we need to ensure that only citizens vote. All would agree.
If we start with this basic premise then it would rightly focus the discussion on the best way to implement a system that would afford all U.S. citizens access to their right to vote while making sure only U.S. citizens cast ballots.
Some issues are really not that complicated on the surface. Everyone should agree in principle. The next step does become much more complicated at the local level but that discussion is about how to implement, not whether we should have a system in place to ensure only citizens vote.
3
@Phil- NJ
"all would agree" -- That's a lot of far-reaching assumptions there, seems to me. :)
@Phil- NJ, your proposal may be common sense, but the issue is far more complicated than you state. In addition to "ensure that only citizens vote," what about ensuring that all (or as many as possible) US citizens vote. I am not aware of anyone proposing or supporting non-citizens vote? What we have are groups on the right stating categorically that large numbers of non-citizens are voting but there is never any proof. Studies have shown repeatedly that voting by non-citizens is rare. Here in NC we have a Congressional election in limbo because the Republican candidate's agent collected absentee ballots and personally delivered them to election central! In reality, politicians are surgically disenfranchising large numbers of citizens through any means available and claiming their actions help reduce (non-existent) voter fraud. This is hardly common sense or doing what is best for America.
1
We should all have, and be required to have, a national ID card. That would solve a lot of problems, from voting to combating crime and terrorism. But "conservatives" would only see it as another case of the federal government throwing its weight around to push states' rights aside.
5
Thank you. We actually have real certifiable problems in this country. Lawmakers posturing and whipping themselves into a frenzy over problems that don’t exist is not helpful.
I am afraid this is not the only issue that is polarizing and basically pointless. Let’s get to work on the real stuff, folks.
5
Republicans don't actually take on issues (other than tax cuts and regulation busting) because they have policy concerns. They take on issues for their marketing power. Voter ID, the wall, gender-neutral bathrooms, etc., aren't serious policy concerns. But they are great marketing ploys to keep their base energized and motivated. So most of our politics has little to do with actually making good policy for the American people. It is simply a game where Republicans market themselves to the hoi polloi by appealing to fear while Democrats try to tamp down the hate that inevitably follows.
It's too bad America's politicians have to spend all their time either stoking the flames of hatred (if they are Republicans) or trying to stomp them out (if they are Democrats). There are real problems to solve.
9
We could use Voter ID cards to build the wall.
They both cost money and do very little.
The only Voodoo that has worked in the past 40 years is republicans claiming to be fiscally conservative.
4
I'm far less concerned about presumed voter fraud here, perpetrated by individual citizens than I am voter machine fraud perpetrated by foreign countries with an agenda. With some counties in this country using computers that run voting machines using an OS as old Windows XP, there is currently no security in the system.
That's what is really scary. Not one person, one vote, but one hacker, 20,000 votes.
11
Voter ID is a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Does Douthat not find it the least bit suspicious that Republicans who are hurt the most by high minority voter turn out are the ones pushing obstacles to voting that among many things includes a step to acquire the ID which in many states is very difficult to do?
What is their motivation for this? Dare you guess, Douthat?
Recently McConnell shot down a Democratic idea to make voting day a national holiday as it is in some countries as a "Democratic power play".
Douthat's column is sheer hypocrisy.
14
"...Much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression." Oy.
Mr. Douthat, someone's anxiety regarding voter fraud is "sincere" only if they accept (and often embrace) at face value the repeatedly disproven threat of voter fraud. Newsflash: that doesn't actually legitimize their concerns. It just means they are willfully ignoring what I refer to as "facts" because it benefits them and the GOP to do so. Kind of a recurring theme among Republicans these days....
6
What Douthat fails to mention is that the real distortion of facts lies with the GOP's false claims of significant voter fraud. So even if the select studies mentioned are accurate, the concept of requiring IDs to vote is based on a lie.
9
"The spectre of those old Chicago operations." Accent on old. We have had new operations -- in Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Kansas, and they are all GOP operations. Republicans are essentially afraid of the ghosts of the late Richard Daley and Boss Tweed, while democrats have to deal with contemporary GOP governors and legislators who put up voting barriers, close polling places, and attempt to denude the power of incoming democratic governors. Who the heck should we be concerned about?
6
Leave it to you Russ to discuss the wrong voter fraud problem. In more than a couple states Republican-controlled legislators are thwarting the will of the electorate, failing to expand Medicaid after the voters approved it by ballot. In other words, these legislatures have made the ballot itself fraudulent. No mean feat, to be sure.
When conservatives lose by democratic means, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy. This is not conjecture anymore, it is fact.
Gerrymandering is it’s own fraud, far more defrauding to democracy than voter ID.
You are not cynical enough, my friend. Voter ID is only one of an arsenal of anti-democratic impulses coursing through the conservative political body, being inflicted on the republic by virulently anti-democratic forces in our midst. All must be met and defeated.
8
@Revoltingallday
“When conservatives lose by democratic means, they will not abandon conservatism, they will abandon democracy.” Brilliantly and succinctly put and a nice summary of the last 20 years of the GOP.
1
Wow, a column by Douthat which actually puts the onus on Republicans to change their behavior, without relying on a bunch of ridiculously false equivalences!
However, this column still hinges on one false equivalence: "modest if little effect" is no worse than "no effect." Sorry, but that's a false equivalence, particularly when so many elections are decided by very thin margins.
An analogy: Our legal system is predicated on the right to be presumed innocent, unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The same standard should apply to the right to vote, i.e. it's presumed that you're eligible to vote unless proven otherwise.
After all, allowing a few guilty people to go free is much more impactful on society than allowing a few ineligible people (and, as Douthat notes, it really is just a few) to cast a vote.
2
Mr. Douthat has unwittingly admitted that he thinks like a Trump supporter. Think about it. He openly acknowledges what study after study has shown: there is no rampant voter fraud anywhere. Logically, this means the entire premise behind the Republican push for stricter voter ID laws is false. He then makes the argument that because one cherry-picked study demonstrates that voter ID laws do not have a chilling effect on voter turnout -- forget the numerous other studies that contradict that claim -- so-called "liberals" should ignore the false premise and find other things to get "whipped into a panic over." This is the same reasoning Trump voters use to dismiss his endless mendacity: who cares if he lies, as long as his actions don't negatively affect me.
Voters who believe in logic and objective fact have to fight this kind of warped rhetoric relentlessly. Call it out whenever you see it, read it or hear it. The country cannot function when one of the two political parties gets a free pass to lie, distort facts and spread misinformation.
6
No data can excuse the utterly immoral, cynical and possibly criminal campaign by the GOP to impose pointless ID requirements, purge voter rolls, and reduce voting opportunities by the GOP for at least two decades. Their intent has been to win by driving down turnout and targeting populations like to vote Democratic. They know it, and only fools and Republicans pretend otherwise. This effort by Ross Douthat to wave it all away is no better than excusing attempted robbery on the grounds that the thieves didn't get the money.
4
Another, somewhat obvious, motivation for shouting about "voter fraud" is to keep the base riled up. It works.
5
@Marc Same could be said for shouting about voter disenfranchisement.
One wonders how ineffective is the method of voting in these republican run states if, as trump ludicrously claims, people can go outside and change their shirt then go back in and vote again. How do these savvy voters know which name to choose? One that hasn't voted yet? In my state of Massachusetts we have 4 sets of paperwork. The poll workers ask for your name and address, then cross them off on both sheets before handing you a ballot. When you turn your ballot in two more and different poll workers cross your name off on two more lists. So please explain how someone could then go in to vote impersonating me or any other voter whose name has been checked off 4 lists! No ID necessary and hardly rocket science. Are other states so inept that they can't institute such a simple but effective method? I suppose if one knew in advance who to impersonate they might get to vote using that name. But then what? It's still just one vote, a stolen vote yes from a legitimate voter, but still only one vote. I just don't get all the fear mongering.
As for national ID, bring it on with these caveats. It needs to be free of cost and easily accessible through the post office or town hall. No driving 40 miles to your closest DMV, no $60 for the ID.
This isn't about fraud. It's about republicans making ID's so difficult to get as to disenfranchise 10's of thousands of voters from their ability to vote. mcconnell called making voting day a federal holiday a "power grab". Enough said!!
6
Re "Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
Douthat gets most of the way through this column providing links to data to back up his assertions before arriving at this broad statement, unsupported by anything (apparently) but his own anecdotal experience.
Then, in the next paragraph, he acknowledges what the above quote seems to dispute: "At the same time there’s also no question that a lot of Republican operatives pushing voter ID laws are cynics who expect their party to benefit from lower minority turnout...."
Interesting.
4
The more one reads about politics today, the more one realizes the American citizen, nearly all of us have been "had."
And we have been had, not by some outside force although Russia sure seems unduly interested in what happens to us around election time. But for the most part we're being had by both parties that we ourselves elected, oft times by the president's administration and cabinet and worst of all by the president himself.
Frank Bruni's column today pointed out the candidates for president need to stop being something they are not and just be themselves. That could also apply to the people that vote. Stop being party slaves or suckers for a con and we need to begin "thinking" for ourselves.
1
I vote by mails. Saves gas and my time in line AND avoids the silly annoyance of have to show photo ID to some poll functionary who won't show me their ID which I find very insulting. I produced ID when I go my voter registration card and that card should be enough.
2
Missed the elephant in the room again, Ross.
Acceptable IDs cost money and time. Something poor people don't have. Now that IDs are the law of the land those voters have already been sidelined. Therefore, in a current election their absence form the poll lists doesn't show up-just like Jim Crow laws kept African Americans off the poll lists for decades.
5
Need to read the study.
.
The introduction of a voter ID law in British Columbia correlated to a 22% drop in absolute voter participation relative to the size of the voting age population.
.
A similar comparison showed a 12% drop in absolute voter participation in Canada federally following the introduction of Voter ID.
.
The drop in British Columbia was particularly significant because it corresponded to a prediction in the literature - British Columbia has a particularly large first nations population, which was, as expected, disproportionately disenfranchised.
8
Are Republicans going to quit trying to suppress the vote because they haven't succeeded so far? If there is no resistance they will try harder and use more drastic and blatant methods. This is their history.
5
"So if the debate [over voter ID] simply disappeared tomorrow, a source of distrust would vanish without either side losing ground." -- Speaking from a left/center perspective, I struggle to see how this is possible. Douthat concedes that Republicans have been the prime mover on this issue, and that there has been an element of cynicism in their tactics. Democrats have pointed out for years that Republicans were operating in a factual vacuum with regard to the prevalence of voter fraud. The lack of trust is profound, because one party has demonstrated a greater recalcitrance to facts on this issue and on others. In general, it's not good enough to invoke an old problem (the Chicago machine) or a potential problem (extending benefits to non-citizens) as a basis for political action. There has to be a bona fide problem, and here, there never was.
4
This column misses the point and is simply dishonest. The honest truth is that Voter ID from the beginning was conceived as a vote-suppression scheme.
It was an invention of Karl Rove and the RNC in the early 2000s at a time Rove was planning for what he called a "permanent Republican majority" Rove and others were worried about demographic changes turning red states purple in the South and West and Voter ID was conceived as a way to combat this.
The GOP justification for Voter ID -- that it would reduce election fraud -- came after the fact. Rove assigned US attorneys to bring fraud cases -- and when they didn't, he had a number of them fired -- that is in the public record.
The "problem" of fraud was actually invented after the "solution" was already planned. Yes there are plenty of rank and file Republicans who believe fraud is widespread, but they only believe this because the GOP propaganda apparatus and Fox News has pumped this erroneous story line into their poor addled brains.
And now Douthat, who should know better, casts this issue as if it's an honest political movement trying to combat fraud -- and that Voter ID is basically harmless.
Shame. One expects this kind of thing from Fox News and the Koch Brothers' propaganda boiler rooms. But the New York Times should not be publishing this.
Taking away someone's right to vote through bureaucratic paperwork hassles or through intimidation -- such as demanding long jail sentences for Latinos is unconscionable.
17
@Tom
It really shouldn't be that hard to register an ID for voting purposes. We register for things all the time: drivers license, insurance, credit cards, etc, etc. This idea that this is so burdensome is absurd.
How about just using the required selective service registration as the 'VoterID" for those 18 and up. For those older than 18, simply springboard it off of their drivers license. I'm asked all the time whether I'd like to contribute money for parks or political campaigns, why not simply link that to voter registration card?
The difficulty of bureaucratic paperwork hassles is meaningless as we do it all the time. Demanding long sentences for voter fraud is fine as that seems like a reason not to engage in it. I don't believe there are targeted laws which require long sentences specifically for latinos as such, that would be illegal.
@Tom
Exactly. What matters is not the effect any of these laws have /have not had, but the intent of those who passed them. And sadly that's all too clear & obvious.
@TomMemo , asking for an ID to enter an office building, take out a loan or board an airplane is perfectly reasonable. Asking for ID before casting a vote is common sense. Anyone without common sense enough to bring an ID... arguing against it is nonsensical
With the widespread use of electronic records and data entry, the exact match requirement is an excuse to deny the vote to citizens. The DMV changed my name due to data entry error and it took 4 visits to get it corrected. Then they changed my daughter's name when she got her license. If our country wants a national ID system, make it available at every post office in the nation and at polling places. Do not require excessive documentation as homeless and transient citizens also have the right to vote. A signature with penalties for dishonest use is sufficient.
12
I suppose there is some irony here, when you realize that there were conservatives who actually ADMITTED that they enacted voter ID laws in an effort to suppress the minority vote. So, if there is any fault to be laid at the feet of the Dems, it's simply that the believed that the Republican's would be able to do what they claimed to be able to do.
I hope this study serves to reinforce a lesson we should have all learned long ago: never believe anything the Republicans say.
20
Thanks for providing information about voter fraud/id research, Mr. Douthat.
But, as a conservative, I will decline to let the voter fraud issue just "go."
Put the shoe on the other foot: do you think any Progressive would just concede an election if they thought that conservatives who had voted in one state that they had recently moved to, had also voted in another state? Fuggetaboutit.
If there is a problem with African-Americans not having identification (which i think reflects an attitude of total condescension by concerned Progressive) or if there is a problem with getting people registered, surely the Democrat party and the African-American leaders (I'm talking to you, Mr. and Ms. Obama and Mr. Holder) could easily lead a nation-wide, in-depth project, to get every adult citizen in America an id (perhaps the one they use to get any health care service that you can think of) and get them registered. Then, we conservatives -- who would also gladly join with the Obamas and Holder in this effort -- would put down the issue.
"modest, if any, turnout effects of voter identification laws"
Recent elections are so close, that a modest effect can swing an election.
9
Confirming that obtaining an ID is not easy. My non-minority, not living in poverty 90 year old mother needed an ID to fly for a family event. Her driver license and passport were expired. She needed her birth certificate and marriage license to get the ID. She had the birth certificate, but needed to pay to get the marriage license. I had to take her to motor vehicles, I was available to do it and own a car, what about the disabled or those who rely on public transportation. Until we make it easy and free for everyone to obtain an ID so they can exercise their constitutional right I will not accept that ID requirements are not a barrier to voting.
41
If something can be used to mobilize political bases, do not expect that something will go away.
The GOP uses voter ID arguments to paint Democrats as wanting to steal elections, and the Democrats use voter ID arguments to paint Republicans as wanting to prevent members of certain groups from voting.
The apparent value of the voter ID arguments for both parties is just too attractive for the parties to dial back, no matter the findings of any study.
1
The thing is, Republicans are trying to keep people from voting. That is the purpose of those laws. And, if there’s no evidence it works, it’s Republicans who should stand down, because those laws do, nevertheless, make it very difficult for the elderly, the infirm, and poor people to vote. Here, there are two state drivers license bureaus that are authorized to issue the proper picture IDs. They are out on the interstate, where no buses go. Add in the lack of qualifying identification for various valid reasons, the lack of money to purchase the IDs, and you have voter suppression. Just the fact that citizens voted without those IDs for as long as they did demonstrates the nefarious purpose of those laws.
3
@Brenda Snow
I checked the Tennessee Secretary of State website, and below, is a list acceptable ID's for voting.
--------------------------------------
Any of the following IDs may be used, even if expired:
Tennessee driver license with your photo
United States Passport
Photo ID issued by the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security
Photo ID issued by the federal or Tennessee state government
United States Military photo ID
Tennessee handgun carry permit with your photo
----------------------------------
https://sos.tn.gov/products/elections/what-id-required-when-voting
Ross- the absence of evidence for voter fraud is not new - absence is the default state, and proponents of those laws have failed since forever to produce anything. I agree with your point that many voters might have been legitimately concerned, but any politician pushing such legislation was acting in bad faith, because it is their obligation to justify the legislation they propose, preferably with more than just Breitbart articles.
Not suppressing African American voters is not going ot work as 'voter outreach' - those voters need to be suppressed because they can see all the other things republicans are doing to hurt them.
6
My first question about the study is... hasn't minority turnout increased in the past 10 years? In general, the electorate is more engaged, and certainly Obama's election brought more people into the political process. So how is that being measured? The link to the study doesn't reveal much about that question.
As many have already pointed out, there are enough razor thin margins these days that any lost votes do count.
7
For Europeans this is nothing but a ghost debate. For voting we have always to take our (compulsory) identity card with us and that´s it.
If ID card is mandatory for all citizens ID proof can never be any kind of threshold for voting and it is not asking to much to bring this small plastic card with you when yo go to the ballot. (I never had show mine because nobody asked for this when I showed my polling card but if someone did I could have done this.)
The real issue is registration, not ID. In opposite: if a person is able to show identity proof this will be a significant step to enforce registration. Mandatory ID cards are contributing to break down barriers: If a person is registered in civil registry so it is in voters registry.
Making ID cards mandatory was regarded as a critical personal freedom´s issue in the old days but this isn´t a substantial problem any longer. As long as somebody has got to have a car - this means a driver´s lincense - to go to work or to the grocery store or as long as a credit card is almost indispensable to do everyday payments the unavoidable vetting processes to obtain such cards are much harder than the application of a ID card. In addition permanent monitoring systems of credit card companies are much tougher than those of all civil registries. Nowadays these arguments became obsolete in fact - one of the reasons UK has reintroduced ID cards in 2006.
If a person is not motivated to votethen any ID proof doesn´t matter.
1
And, you are wrong, and you are speaking from a position of privilege. Try to imagine people without credit cards, which you can apply for online, and which you do not get unless you already have evidence of good credit. It is not the same thing, and, by the way, we are not Europeans and do not carry a National ID.
1
@Brenda Snow
These "privilege" allegations are not helpful on this issue.
Take the suburbs of French big cities for instance where 70 up to 80 % of population are immigrants of French nationality. All these people are French citizens - most of them PoC - who can easily poof their citizenship by their French "carte d´ identité" (National ID) in the twinkling of an eye so they can easily register in "liste électorale" even online. (I could set a link to the official template here)
But despite their "privilege" easily effected by simple identity card (!) they are sharing with me more 70 % of those people do not register or vote anyhow deliberately.
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2010/03/25/l-abstention-en-banlieue-plus-grave-que-les-emeutes-par-luc-bronner_1324280_3232.html
This is called "abstention" and this is the real problem. It has almost the same reasons like similar effects in USA.
The French have investigated this. See the result in this article of "le Monde" I have linked and in this Wikipedia article in French
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention
J have to apologize that I´m not able to link an helpful article in English. English speakers are so focussed on the register issue that they seem to refuse to do their job on "abstention" so this issue is hidden behind the "you are privileged so you can´t join in" narrative.
Anyway:
- Mr. Douthat, you are near the right track this time.
- It would be a little bit easier if you HAD a National ID.
I agree with the sentiment others have expressed--just how do you conduct a scientifically valid study of voter suppression due to legislated barriers? And tell me how the Alabama case a few years back could have failed to be effective in voter suppression? You know, the law the Alabama state government implemented that required a picture ID from a motor vehicle office that was rapidly followed by the closure of motor vehicle offices in minority areas. The strategy was unmistakable: require folks that may have limited transportation options get an ID to vote and then close the places where they can get said ID. Tell me how that is not intentional suppression of minority voting and tell me how that could fail to be effective in it's intent to suppress voting? I'll wait for your answer, Mr. Douthat...
12
The hysteria around this is confusing.
Is asking for identification denying anyone?
Actually that is merely enforcing voting laws, that generally say one must cast a vote only for oneself.
You need an ID to get on an airplane, or visit an office building. Why should we get in to a voting booth without identification? The arguments against it are absurd.
4
@Joe Yoh. the problem is not that ID is required; it is the restrictions on the type of ID that can be used. Only certain “government-issued ID’s” qualify. Although an out-of-state license along with proof of residency such as a lease is okay to register to vote in Wisconsin, only a Wisconsin driver’s license can be used for voter ID. As a poll worker in the last presidential election in a city and ward where there are many people who are here for only a few years, we sent maybe 1% of the voters to the DMV or home to get a passport because they could not use their non-Wisconsin driver’s licenses.
2
@anna shen,
Not true, look at the image in the article, and you will see that you can just about use anything that has your photo and was issued by some kind of authority.
Seriously, does anyone in the USA live today's life without at least ONE of these IDs?
This is truly a NON ISSUE.
1
This is simply not the case. I became a Deputy Voter registrar after my own daughter was denied the right to vote. Having recently moved to Texas following graduation from college, she immediately registered to vote, but hadn't yet obtained a Texas driver's license. While she had her government issued Oregon driver's license, they denied her right to vote and did not provide any details regarding other ID she could use. While, not one to give up, she researched the requirements and returned later with her passport and voted. Note: if you live near central/downtown Houston, getting a license is not easy. It's a 30-60 minute drive outside the city, depending on traffic, to get to the DMV office and often a 4 to 5 hour wait to get your license. In other words, it's a full day process that means taking a day off from work). I don't really have a problem with asking for identification of some sort, I do have a problem with the difficulty of obtaining a license and the fact that you can use your gun license as an acceptable for of ID, but not your college id card. It's no wonder that Texas has one of the lowest rates of voting in the country.
56
There is no such thing as an "almost nil" effect when it comes to voting. EVERY legitimate vote has to count EVERY time, ESPECIALLY in the closest of close races. To suggest that this whole controversy is basically "much ado about nothing" is to miss that critical point. Remember, elections can and have been determined by one vote. Elections are not an "overall" thing -- each one is a specific contest, and ALL elections are important.
13
@Norma Louise likewise, every illegitimate vote must be denied. Ie an ID is a simple essential step.
Is asking for identification denying anyone?
Actually that is merely enforcing voting laws, that generally say one must cast a vote only for oneself.
You need an ID to get on an airplane, or visit an office building. Why should we get in to a voting booth without identification? The arguments against it are absurd.
3
@Joe Yoh "This is merely enforcing the voting laws." Talk about circular reasoning. Create unnecessary laws, and then insist that enforcing them is benign. You ignore the fact that voter fraud, i.e., voting as if you were another person, simply isn't a problem. In California, I go to my polling place, tell the poll workers my name (which is crossed off of one list) and address (which is crossed off of another list). No ID required, and I'm done. And, by the way, I use a paper ballot. What is the problem with this?
2
It would be great if this issue went away because it hurts our democracy when voters believe the two parties are playing unfairly. Do we have any adults in the two parties to actually make the issue go away? I don't know. The first step would be for the Republicans to block out the conspiracy theorists that used to exist on the fringe.
6
For the most part, I'll give Mr. Douthat credit for laying much of the blame on Republicans for their misguided hysteria over phantom voter fraud. In the last paragraph, however, he does do a little "false equivalency" because I do think that Democrats have a much more legitimate reason to be critical of the coordinated, systematic attempts to make voting more difficult via ID laws and shenanigans like not accepting P. O. boxes for Native Americans in North Dakota or moving polling places to inconvenient locations.
"There is more to the voting-rights debate than just voter ID laws; nothing in the new study settles arguments about early voting, absentee balloting and more."
This quote alone could be an entire column about Republican voter suppression. I, in a blue state, have never had to wait more than 5 minutes to vote. Yet, in Ohio, I see lines of people waiting for two hours or more to vote. Republican efforts have, by and large, been to reduce, not expand, vote turnout.
And, we haven't even mentioned gerrymandering yet.
22
“...voting in America would rattle along basically unchanged.” Yeah, that’s precisely the problem. The status quo is broken. Maybe Mr. Douthat is ok with elections being determined by a mere half (in a good year) of the electorate showing up. I am heartened that he acknowledges that Republican effort to suppress votes and voters is precisely the wrong agenda, but as with everything any Serious Republican writes these days, he feels the need to draw a phony equivalency with some action on the left. One side wants to reduce the franchise, one side wants to increase it. Shouldn’t be that hard to draw a distinction about who’s on the right side of history.
Besides, I’m not sure how anyone could credibly study the effects of reducing barriers to voting. Very few states have tried it, and certainly not to the extent that states have tried blocking access. New York has finally taken meaningful steps to increase access to the vote, so only over the next few years will we be able to test the hypothesis.
7
Here is what puts the lie to the argument for voter ID: if conservatives were genuinely worried about voters having ID to prevent fraud, wouldn’t they have a government campaign to publicize the effort and fund and expansion of offices where voters could get the ID, extend hours at DMV offices, hire more clerks, do outreach to communities data show have low ID rates, and in general make it easy for voters to comply?
Instead, they do the opposite, like in Alabama where they shut offices in black communities and atexas where they allowed gun registration ID but not college registration,even though both are state issued.
28
It's hilarious that Douthat"s argument turns on dismissing “modest, if any, turnout effects of voter identification laws” when recent elections have been decided by razor thin margins.
In the spirit of compromise, I'll accept a requirement for uniform ID's if the state funds a major effort to reach every citizen thru visits to community centers, churches, schools, and whatever public places are available, to process people for new ID's.
Otherwise, it's just another attempt to suppress the opposition's vote,"modest" as it might be.
15
The debate won’t end because Voter ID is about control, not fairness. Making a voter produce papers to prove who she is signals that the state is watching. This is far different than simply trusting her to provide her name and address on the way to the booth. It also slows down the act of voting, either through the ritual of checking every ID or by forcing voters to find and bring the proper paperwork the polls, which reduces turnout.
And that’s the point. Low turnout favors Republicans. If the polling place is so inefficient that it takes a long time to actually get to the voting booth the local government is trying to suppress the vote. Voter ID is just another tool for Republicans.
10
@M
"Making a voter produce papers to prove who she is signals that the state is watching" -- Exactly so. Which simultaneously proves both the folly *&* the intents of state legislatures in passing the ID laws.
Simple common sense tell us that undocumented immigrants wouldn't want to do anything that elevates their visibility, & attempting to vote would certainly do precisely that. And as many court cases & studies have shown, the GOP has a *very* hard time substantiating their claims. Yet they press on regardless, which is prima facie proof of the intent.
3
@M you believe it is about control, and state this as fact. You seem to know what is in the hearts of conservative legislators? Good to be a mind reader of countless others.
is asking for identification denying anyone?
Actually that is merely enforcing voting laws, that generally say one must cast a vote only for oneself.
You need an ID to get on an airplane, or visit an office building. Why should we get in to a voting booth without identification? The arguments against it are absurd.
@Joe Yoh If it is just to prove the identity of the voter, then there is no need for the restricted lists of valid ID. An expired driver's license still has the photo of the holder. Utility bills or property tax rolls show the place of residence. So if the ID law is only to prove identification why so severely limit the types that are allowed?
My concern with the voter ID laws relate to the acceptable types of IDs and the ease at which they are obtainable. In Texas state issued IDs are drivers licenses, state IDs, concealed handgun licenses, etc. Most of these are available at the DMV locations which seem to always be off bus routes and difficult to reach with public transportation. For non drivers, this is an impediment to obtaining an ID.
7
I would rather see states federally required to allow people who fail to present state-required ID to vote, and to prohibit the classification of those votes as "provisional", and potentially uncountable.
There should be a permanent record made, and States should be required to carry out a follow-up investigation to record whether the non-identified voter has obtained identification, and where and whether there were any problems.
If the State wants to deny even one person the right to vote, it should be required to respect the individual's due process rights. The registrar's mission is to permit people to vote legally -- not to prevent people from voting on the flimsy pretext that they must be assumed to be illegal.
2
What matters most is the intent - voter intimidation and suppression. Both are clear and both are wrong.
9
It's a fact that greater voter turnout is better for Democrats. Consequently, republicans take many approaches to lessen turnout. And that's just wrong. In Texas, gun owner permits are acceptable ID, but student IDs from public colleges are not. What does that tell you about who the republican lawmakers want to vote??
23
This simply is not true. When I worked as a poll watcher in Texas last November, I saw a dozen people turned away for lack of proper ID. Those people would have been allowed to vote under Texas’s pre-Voter ID laws. Having spoken to other poll workers, I know that this was not an isolated event in my precinct. Speak to anyone who was actually at the polls in a Voter ID state and they will confirm that these laws worked exactly as the GOP intended.
23
If Republicans truly believe in democracy with the greatest possible voter participation, they should support making voting day a national holiday and celebration of real American values.
16
This article is a tempest in a teapot. Before a Voter ID card would be issued, is the scrutiny of the registered voter roll. Being arbitrarily struck from the roll is the issue which should be analysed by researchers.
12
It's easy to accept that voter ID laws have no impact. Here in Pennsylvania there was the infamous GOP legislator quote that now the state could be delivered to Romney in 2008. Didn't happen but it made them feel nice for a while.
But to me this is just one part of a broader pattern of disenfranchisement. The conversation should also include gerrymandering, voter role cleansing, voting administration, felon voting rights, judicial actions to circumvent voting rights laws. The list goes on.
Voter ID laws alone are perhaps little more than a rallying cry. Same as immigration - it's is a concern but it's core purpose is to inflame the core (and that did work well for the right). There are far more important issues like income distribution or climate change or maybe just getting rid of a congenital liar who could care less about good governance.
11
I recommend Carol Anderson's eye-opening One Person, No Vote. This meticulously researched cook proves how voter suppression of black and minority vote has tarnished our democracy since the civil war. Today's Republican party has perfected every possible tactic maximum effect.
8
Voter ID is a wedge issue that Republicans use to fire up the base. Whether it works or not is immaterial. It's a political ploy. Even though, voter fraud has been repeatedly proved to be essentially nonexistent, Republicans keep pushing it.
They have other ways of suppressing the vote. This tactic of closing polling places and making people, many of whom rely on public transportation, travel long distances and wait for hours on end, is effective. Setting up restrictive voting times for people in these situations can make it virtually impossible for them to get to the poles in time. Forcing to stand in line for six hours or more is brutal and terribly unfair.
When Mitch McConnell recently stated that creating a federal voting holiday was nothing but a power grab, that revealed the true motivations of Republicans. They want to prevent lower income people from getting to the poles. That statement should have been a headline in every paper.
If Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today and we asked him:
What you rather have? A holiday commemorating your birth, or a holiday in your honor on election day so black and poor people can get to the poles, he would take about .01 second and say and voting holiday.
Call it King Day. Be a King and vote. Now that would fill him with joy to see everyone at the polls.
41
I believe you are on to something here. Take this holiday that is not celebrated by all and make it a national holiday that ensures that all are able to vote! If this holiday served the duel purpose of being election day it could be a holiday that all employers were forced to celebrate. As an alternative the same purpose could be served by presidents day.
6
“So a voter ID requirement might possibly effect the closest of close races, based on what we’ve learned up till now “. Two of the last 5 presidential elections were close and nation wide the last election was a runoff spectacle for many major offices including our governor’s race in Georgia. Lest Ross and commenters forget, Brian Kemp, our new governor, was the author of our perfect match ID. As a result folks with particularly difficult names to spell had their votes challenged. 60% of provisional ballots were cast by minority voters. I worked long and hard for my candidate and feel cheated by Georgia voter ID laws meant to thwart the will of many of our citizens.
19
All well and good, but Ross fails to consider that voter suppression is part of a larger strategy by some in the GOP to enshrine minority rule. Witness the actions of Republicans in North Carolina and Wisconsin who have used restrictive voting laws (a federal judge found that NC GOP lawmakers had targeted minority voters "with surgical precision"), extreme gerrymandering and last-minute bills stripping powers from newly elected Democratic officeholders to thwart the will of the electorate and maintain their stranglehold on their state's politics. The party will not abandon this tactic until it ceases to believe only it has the legitimate right to govern, even when voters choose otherwise.
20
You conveniently gloss over issues like early voting and the closing of polling sites, as well as the lack of resources given to polling centers in certain selected areas. These all have a large effect on voter turnout. Voter ID laws are less impactful, but still significant. Look at the elections the last 20 years in Florida. Even a few hundred votes would have alrtered the course of American history. Or the Virginia state election that ended in a tie and the Republican won by having his name pulled out of a bowl. This gave Republicans the majority in the Virginia House and may, if things fall right, give the Republicans the governor's mansion. If Voter ID laws prevented even one poor, elderly person who could not obtain the requisite ID because of lost records, it can still have a major effect. Voting is a right. We should all be dedicated to making it easier for everyone.
9
The Chairman of my surgical residency used to say that you can find a study to support almost any point of view you want. Ross, you did not add much to the voter ID laws debate with your column, but you did prove beyond a doubt that my Chairman was correct. Referencing one study rarely makes good academics, but understanding the bias of the author or the presenter is equally important in the peer review process. Republicans have been caught numerous times their pants down stating there goals for voter ID laws are to suppress Black, Latino and Democratic voters. Whether it’s worked or not may be up for debate, but the goal of the intent is not. Next week you should discuss why is it, that only the whitest, reddest most conservative states push for these laws. Then the week after, you could talk about the politics of those politicians grandparents in those deep red states during the civil right era and see what parallels you can draw from an overtly discriminatory past to the subtle “law abiding “ type efforts used today. This should be your assignment for such a poor, yet overly confident effort today.
27
Few Americans go through life with no proof of identity or citizenship. Without it, Americans get Social Security cards, which means they can't legally work. American without proof of citizenship cannot apply for social programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security retirement benefits. This is why opponents of voter ID laws are unable to produce U.S. citizens to testify in court that they were unable to get state-issued voter photo ID cards.
A few statewide in dead ties the have to be settled by a coin flip while, but hundreds of races for county and municipal positions are settled by a handful of votes. So voter ID fraud can swing some elections.
1
@William Case Citations please. Your opinion won't cut it.
2
@William Case:
There are LOTS of people who don't have ID that reflects their present address. Or who temporarily can't produce it. Those are the real targets of the voter ID laws - it's like picking off stragglers, rather than trying to confront an army on the march. Implement random unnecessary document checks, and maybe 2% or 3% of the potential vote can be chased away. And the discouraged few will tend to be young people, transients, students - the most Democratic demographics.
There is a tiny amount of actual voter fraud, but voter ID laws don't address it. Do you think there are actually people voting in the names of other people? And you think these people can't manage to apply for absentee ballots? And if there were ever some huge conspiracy to do so, they wouldn't be able to produce fake IDs to go with it? There are plenty of opportunities to tighten election security, including checking IDs at the polls, but there's no reason not to provide generous alternative methods of establishing identity - unless the goal is to discourage voting, rather than improve security.
1
@Mark Grebner
In a recent case, several member of a Dallas country politics gamily were convicted of voter ID and voter impersonation. The family held country and municipal elected positions. They used other people's IDs to cast ballots in different countries and suburbs. They were caught only because someone spotted three and realized they were voting out of precinct. On Dallas women had her son vote using her husband's ID. They were caught only because the husband showed up a few minute later to vote at the same polling place.
If you really want to believe that voter ID laws do not suppress minority voters, feel free to do so. If you really believe Republicans are deeply concerned about voter fraud rather than trying to suppress minority voters, feel free to do so. Also, feel free to believe in the confederate flag being an expression of heritage rather than an expression of racism. You can believe whatever you want. But that doesn't make it true.
94
@Larry Bennett
You can defend your rejection of this study as long as you provide proof that it is flawed. Otherwise you fall into the same category of folks who deny climate change based solely on their beliefs. Do you have anything to offer that might cast doubt on the methods used or the scope of the study or the conclusions?
I'd bet that you haven't even read the study and are demeaning others based solely on what YOU believe based your political views alone. And as you said, believing doesn't make it true.
I'm going to go read the study now and see what I think of its quality, because like Charles Darwin.."I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject) as soon as the facts are shown to be opposed to it.”
1
Mr. Douthat, you make an interesting point here, but more importantly, you do not fall into the false-equivalency trap that so many do.
Thank you for pointing out that the GOP is the visually (and I would argue substantively) greater bad-actor here, and for putting the onus on it to bring this battle to an end.
It's a small step, but it does shine in this increasingly dark and weary world.
4
Sorry, but even a "modest" suppression of turnout is a violation of the constitution.
45
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere, not just a cynical cover for racist vote suppression."
Your laugh for the day.
129
Alternatively, make it as easy as possible to get an ID, which is what Mexico does. The national voter ID card is free, and in addition to the large number of processing centers where people can get one, there are mobile units which reach into faraway towns and neighborhoods. Also as an incentive for everyone to get the card, it is pretty much the only universally accepted form of ID other than a passport (state-issued driver licenses don't count). People without documents can still get a voter ID if two witnesses sign affidavits saying that they know the person. (And no, there are no indications that this has resulted in a proliferation of fake identities.)
7
Voter turnout in this country is a terrible problem. And therefore it is not a reliable measure of the impact of Voter ID and other pernicious and malevolent methods of voter disenfranchisement.
I've been waiting for one of the conservative columnists at this newspaper to speak out and denounce Republican efforts to keep young and minority voters from the polls, and of course, this is what we get from the reliable Mr. Douthat. Fuggetaboutit, he says. Could we please have a conservative columnist with a sense of decency?
23
I can see voter ID as a solution to the issue of people voting in someone else's name (showing up and voting as someone who is dead, for instance). But I'm not aware that this is happening in large numbers.
If the issue was immigrants or other ineligible people voting (which has been the claim), then the problem is how they ended up on the electoral roll in the first place - which asking for ID at the polling station does not resolve.
5
Thus far, GOP'ers seem to be the ones guilty of voter fraud:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/texas-mother-four-gets-eight-years-jail-voter-fraud-n941261
10
@R. Law
Texas Democrats have also been convicted of voter fraud, but it doesn't matter. Voters ID laws are designed to stop voter fraud on the part of Republicans, Democrats and voters who claim no part affiliation.
@William - Kindly provide the link to a news item about Texas Dems being convicted of voter fraud.
17
Ross, let's get one thing straight. One party believes in making it easier to vote and one party believes in making it harder.
We could vote from home in our bathrobes if congress wanted. That would make for a more representative democracy which the Republicans fear with ever fiber.
Let's not leave out that the President should be elected by a majority vote and not the anti-democratic Electoral College.
120
Pons and Cantoni qualify their findings with "measured by campaign contributions and self-reported political engagement."
And this be same Pons who concluded "A large-scale randomized experiment conducted during the 2012 French presidential and parliamentary elections shows that voter registration requirements have significant effects on turnout, resulting in unequal participation."
This is hardly vindication, though it is fairly shoddy even for you.
62
I appreciate Douthat's advice that Republicans should stand down on this issue. I doubt they will take it; the flurry of Republican voting law changes in recent years really have been about race and ethnicity no matter how Douthat tries to clean it up. However real the memory of past urban machine election fraud, those involved ballot-box stuffing and other schemes carried out by election officials and politicos. They didn't rely on people individually showing up to vote as someone else; that's just not a reliable and efficient means of stealing an election. A federal appeals court struck down N.C.'s voter ID law after finding that it was deliberately written to allow use of forms of ID most white residents have and disallow use of forms of ID many minority residents have. It was so restrictive that it didn't even allow use of photo IDs issued by the state universities. (Republicans don't like students to vote either.) And the voter ID laws, as Douthat briefly notes, have often been pared with reduced early voting times; movement of polling places out of minority communities and away from college campuses, etc.
25
If a form of ID, such as school or college issued ones, don’t require citizenship, they aren’t a valid basis for voting that does require it.
2
@NCSense The restriction of college ID's may have been because a student may have been a resident of another state where they could get a mail in vote form and thus vote twice.
2
@From Where I Sit
A driver's license is not proof of citizenship and voter ID laws aren't intended to prove citizenship in any case.
7
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I agree with you. I’ve never seen voter ID laws as an insurmountable obstacle to poor and minority voting. Yes there are a few cases, especially the very old who were born in a time when record keeping wasn’t that good, that will have difficulty. But if voting rights activists put the time and resources into it, and the perspective voters cared enough, the proper IDs are obtainable.
4
@Godzilla De Tukwila That's a nice idea, but it simply is not true. You are probably not poor or minority or faced the challenges of not owning a car or drivers' license. Or, the ability to take a day off from work without pay to go and register. "Obtainable" is a matter of "perspective". That is the correct use of the word. Your last line should have identified voters as "prospective." You failed the literacy test.
4
Voter ID laws do not block many people who show up at the polls from voting.
What strict voter ID laws do is deter "last minute voters" who become motivated and find that they cannot in the short time left to register and/or vote get the necessary document.
For example, in some states you cannot get a driver's license without a birth certificate. And, believe it or not, in some states it is difficult to obtain a birth certificate without a driver's license or similar proof of identity. And, if a person living in Texas needs (a) to get a birth certificate from, say, Florida, (b) a divorce judgment from New York, and (c) have a friend drive them 100 miles or more to get a driver's license, they will probably decide that it isn't worth it.
In the meantime, there is rampant absentee ballot fraud (see NC-9) which is not being addressed.
8
The reason why voter ID laws have no effect on voter turn out is that almost everyone already has a photo ID. You cannot operate in modern society without one. Every where you go today, you need to show a photo ID--from buying a drink in a bar, to cashing a check to air or train travel and everything in between. Need a Social Security card, the first think they ask is to show a photo ID. Heck, I needed to show my ID to get a public library card and join the YMCA. Terrorism, identity theft and other modern threats to safety and security will only rachet up requirements of a photo ID. Critics of voter ID laws can always find some 99-year-old, house-bond widow that she cannot who votes but cannot get to the DMV. I think there are one or two in Tennessee. If the NAACP and other anti-ID activists would direct their money and manpower to finding those without an ID and ferrying them to the DMV, it would make there life much easier.
5
@ken It's not a matter of simply having a photo ID, it's which ones are required. In recent years, states with Republican majority legislatures have jumped through hoops to disallow IDs which many minority groups, particularly those that lean Democrat, would find easiest to use.
For example, by disallowing university IDs, many students are out of luck because drivers licenses, often having been issued in other jurisdictions, aren't accepted. This is just one of many ways Republicans suppress the vote.
5
@Patrick J. Cosgrove Absolutely correct. The extreme restrictions on what counts as a valid ID are part of the problem. Doesn't an expired driver's license still work to match your face to your name? Don't utility bills show where you live? In North Dakota they allow nursing home IDs and don't allow tribal or school IDs - how odd.
2
Two points. 1. If you can't get to the location to get your I'D, which thousands can't, then you can't vote. And you can't get to a polling station because it's too far away, then you can't vote. And here in good ole Dixie land that's exactly what they do. 2. Why is it only Republican States enact voter Id's to protect against fraud, when study after study says there is essentially no voter fraud?
Let's put it all together, Republicans will do everything they can to limit access to voting for the less fortunate, including ID requirements, purging voter lists, limiting access to polling stations, etc.
59
@cherrylog754
The reason conservatives are obsessed with voter fraud is because they do it, and therefore suspect that the other party is doing it as well. Look up the history of poll taxes, "literacy" tests. grandfather clauses -- all of them conservative trickery that were eventually struck down by the courts.
16
So my thought is this. The voter ID law in itself is not the problem. The problem is closing centers where one votes and changing districts are more of a problem than proving you belong. Why can't we have voting on weekends instead of a weekday?
8
This is not complicated, nor is it a scheme to deny citizens the opportunity to vote.
You need ID to do most things in modern America (enter federal buildings, use an airplane, etc.), so why not have to present an ID to vote, which is one of the most valuable rights afforded to citizens?
There should be a federally approved list of acceptable IDs, and student IDs should not be one of them unless it has a secondary requirement.
Everyone wants to see a bogeyman behind even the most common sense ideas. Would it be racist/discriminatory to require people to produce proof of residency to register their children for school? PS. It is not, and it is required.
6
@stan None of the things you list as requiring an ID are constitutionally protected rights and many people never need to do those things. As to a federally approved list of acceptable IDs -- election law is a state authority. There is no reason not to accept a student ID. The US Supreme Court ruled decades ago that college students are entitled to vote where their residence is -- including in the location of their university if that is where they reside for most of the year. They are not restricted to voting where their parents reside.
11
@stan The problem is in the state lists of 'acceptable' IDs to vote. Any combination of a picture id whether it has a current address or not, and some documentation (utility bills, property tax records, bank statements) should be sufficient. You only need to show who you are by having some form of picture ID, including student or tribal IDs, and that you live in the precinct, utility bills, etc.
But state voter registration laws that restrict the types of ID acceptable are the problem, and a federal list - assuming you can somehow get around the fact that states/localities are in charge of voting - would also be likely to have totally useless reliance on a limited, limiting, list of valid IDs.
I work in an urban library with patrons from all social strata. I can tell you that many people do not have the type of ID required to vote. The people without the ID are generally poor or elderly. This is a fact. I see it every day.
My elderly mother's last national election was 2012, and we realized that since her drivers license had lapsed (she no longer drove and would have had to order a birth certificate, marriage license, and court order showing a name-spelling change from different jurisdictions to renew it), she would not be able to vote. She had voted in Florida since 1944 and had lived at the same address since 1957!! A campaign volunteer showed up at her door and told her, "You can vote absentee!" This is a loophole to drive a truck through, but I don't think it increases ballot integrity at all.
We've had many razor-thin results in Florida elections recently, and everyone who wants to vote should be allowed to do so. The Republicans know exactly what they're doing by suppressing votes. (Some have even admitted it.) They are making it hard for the extreme elderly, the poor, and the young (college students) to vote--constituencies who tend to support Democrats.
53
@eConnie
How do all these elderly urban and poor people get there, Uber? I lived in Florida, and supplied rides to people that didn’t have transportation on Election Day. The larger problem I found, is people who moved to assisted living or nursing homes that vote in the wrong precinct. That is not considered voter fraud, and doesn’t effect state or federal races, but does have impact on local elections.
3
@eConnie, Then use the Medicare card for the elderly without ID, regardless that it has a picture or not.
1
Attempting to do an evil thing based upon color aka race - voter suppression by voter ID- is not excused legally nor morally because it has not been successful. And one study by two economists to the contrary is anecdotal evidence of little or nothing.
Comparing voter ID to the security requirements for travel or entering a building or a space is ludicrous. In the Ameriican divided limited different power constitutional republic of united states transportation and being a customer or visitor are of little or no relevance.
Economics is not a science. There are too many unknowns and variables to craft the double-blind experimental controlled tests that provide predictable and repeatable results. Economics is gender, color aka race,ethnicity, national origin, faith, politics, education, sociology and history plus arithmetic.
There is no Nobel Prize in economics. There is the Swedish National Bank Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel.
6
I have felt for some time that Real ID - the 2005 law that sets national standards for driver license and identity documents - when fully implemented, that much of this debate should disappear.
In fact, if the Congress wanted to to help in this matter - like right now during this budget debate - they would provide funds for those states struggling to comply with this unfunded federal mandate.
Small money for what is essentially a national identification card...a tool which we sorely need in identifying citizens for a wide range of public purposes.
1
Mr Douthat gives us a sad reminder that some Republican pundits (and not just everyday Republican voters) actually believe the propaganda. The larger problem, for the GOP, is that their actual agenda is wildly unpopular. Shifting the tax burden downward, letting corporations decide whether or not to destroy the climate, letting insurance companies decide who lives or dies, getting rid of Medicare & Social Security, etc etc, are not positions they can even openly articulate, let alone defend. And so their co-conspirators in the right wing media dream up these problems--voter fraud, invasions by Mexican gangs, death panels, the abolition of hunting rifles, transgender bathroom predators, one could go on & on--to convince voters to vote against the totalitarian communist Democrats instead of voting for . . . anything.
12
Voter ID laws are just one piece of the piece of the picture. The bigger issue involves election theft via measures intended to keep people from voting or their votes from being counted. In fairness, please review the Brennan Center for Justice' Voting Rights & Election research and analysis.
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis
7
Even if Douthat's conclusion that ID laws have "modest, if any, turnout effects" is correct he misses the larger point that denying any voter the right to vote is a violation of their constitution right to participate in our democracy. Once you start down the road of minimizing the abrogation of constitutional rights because they have no effect on the "big picture", you have lost the fundamental basis for our democracy.
It is the core principle or our constitution that the rights granted to citizens of this country are individual rights, not collective rights. The government cannot abrogate the rights of one citizen to promote the general good. The importance of this principle cannot be overstated. If our constitutional rights are only enforceable when we can prove harm to the nation as a whole then they are no longer inalienable rights.
The right to vote is, moreover, the single foundational right granted in the constitution. Without the right to vote we cease to be a democracy. How ironic that Douthat, and other so called conservatives, are so willing to deny others that which they claim to uphold: the inalienable right to participate in a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
264
@ML, is asking for identification denying anyone?
Actually that is merely enforcing voting laws, that generally say one must cast a vote only for oneself.
You need an ID to get on an airplane, or visit an office building. Why should we get in to a voting booth without identification? The arguments against it are absurd.
@Joe Yoh Do you have a constitutional right to enter a particular building, or fly on an airplane? You simply disregard the arguments against requiring voter I.D. by characterizing them as "absurd." That doesn't make it so. (BTW, as a California voter, I've never been asked for ID to vote in my life. The poll worker asks my name and address and crosses me off the list. Bingo, done.)
31
@ML This would have been a far better subject for a column than what has been published here. Thank you for this statement.
16
Ross neglects to discuss the GOP intent to stop students from voting in college towns. If they have to vote in their parents' state, it reduces votes in dem clusters in GOP dominated states.
31
@kathryn
I don't see how voter ID laws have ANYTHING to do with students in college towns. I can't be a registered voter in Detroit, and vote in East Lansing, just because I am at Michigan State - ID or not.
You vote in the city / state you are registered in. You either declare your residency in the city you go to school in and vote at school, or you keep your residency in your home city, vote by absentee ballot, or go home to vote.
@kathryn
you should have to vote at your permanent address, not your temporary school address. That is what absentee ballots are for - to be used by people who are away from their permanent address.
1
I think making an argument that voter suppression is about voter ids is false. It’s not the requiring an id, it’s the fact that in certain states obtaining an id has become much harder for minorities by closing license branches and putting them outside city centers.
Also purging voter rolls after not voting in 1 election, closing polling stations in walkable areas of cities, “losing” cords to voting booths, and broken booths. Exact matches from voter roll to voters id when mistakes are made, and not accepting the proof via secondary id at the polls.
Republicans are very good at hiding voter suppression by calling it voter id, but it goes way beyond the id requirement.
202
@SDemocrat - I should have known those things were going on in other states besides mine. There's nothing like closing most DMV locations and opening a single location outside of public transit areas to make it nearly impossible for some voters to get an ID. The first year our county did that, we had 8 hour lines at the DMV. It got so bad that for a time police stopped issuing tickets for an expired license, and a local builder advertised he could build you a house faster than you could get your ID at the DMV. The state also reduced the number of days the DMV was open in our very large county. The local paper said the DMV had to process 4175 people a day.
82
@SDemocrat
My comment offers a solution to the issue of getting an ID difficult due to closure of DMV branches; I'm not commenting on the need for an ID to vote ...
States could establish mobile ID services, similar to a library's book mobile. An 'ID-mobile' can go anywhere and set up shop on an announced schedule - at big box store or school parking lots in rural areas or in designated urban/inner city areas (it may be a temporary inconvenince to local traffic having a bus parked at a curb for a day or half of one but no more so than urban construction zones).
Take the service to the people.
21
@Margaret E
That assumes that states want to help people get their IDs. But this whole argument is about states whose politicians want to make sure they aren't voted out of office.
38
Are there studies showing that the massive lines at polling places in minority neighborhoods do not deter individuals from voting?
Are there studies showing that repeated and significant disparities in wait times to vote from one neighborhood to another do not constitute an equal protection violation?
114
Glad to see you recognize the ID issue as just one aspect of a multi-pronged, coordinated approach to suppress the left-leaning vote. I also suspect that the cynics outnumber the sincere when one looks to the motivations of those on the right pushing these measures. I'd also like to note that you left out mass purging of voter rolls. I'm not sure exactly what you are calling for here: eliminate the ID laws or just shrug, grin, and bear them.
9
Republicans say that just one fraudulent vote would justify the voter ID laws. Democrats respond that taking away even one legitimate vote undermines democracy. Will a study that says both sides are making a mountain out of a molehill have any impact on the standoff?
It's not just voter ID; there are other ways that Republicans who control statehouses try to manipulate voting. What was that Mitch McConnell said about voting? What about long lines in some precincts? What about laws that keep felons who have served their time from voting? And the dead cat on the table is the electronic voting that leaves no paper trail.
So,according to this study, voter ID laws don't make a significant difference and it would be nice if both parties recognized that as a fact. Except in close elections and those are the ones where parties have the most interest.
8
I'm glad Mr Douthat has the honesty to state that cynical Republican operatives and politicians are driving this debate.
For their part, I think Democrats would do well to avoid casting minorities as victims of voter ID laws. It is insulting to African Americans and Hispanics to say that the need to present a photo ID uniquely restricts their access to the polls.
Yes, voter ID laws create a barrier for some, but not an insurmountable one. Democratic get-out-the-vote operatives merely have to roll up their sleeves and work with community institutions - churches, retirement centers, local governments - to ensure access for everyone. I would go so far as to say they should do the same in white communities who voted for Trump. What better message to tell Trump voters: we're looking out for your rights, too.
4
The real problem is fraud in voter registration: self attestation of citizenship and eligibility generally with no verification.
4
@Dutch Arnold You miss Douthat's point apparently. As a practical matter, the problem you are talking about is so statistically small it doesn't effect election results.
7
No one is studying how prevalent it is nor is there any systematic enforcement because nobody verified whether as registered vote is a citizen.
1
@Dutch Arnold please tell me where self attestation is used? In Georgia where I live proof of citizenship is necessary for a drivers license or id. I am sure this is true of most every state. If a state issues an id it is clearly marked non citizen. Still looking for voter fraud?
2
Mr Douthat frames the argument poorly.
Whether the voter ID laws have a provable effect of suppressing the vote in significantly large numbers is irrelevant - even one vote suppressed is far too many.
What is far more important is that Republicans have demonstrated, in plain English statements, again and again, that their INTENT behind voter ID laws is not to "preserve the integrity of the vote" but instead to suppress the vote among minority voters.
It is this intent to suppress the vote which must be fought tooth and nail, even if Republicans haven't yet found a strong enough method to show up on scientific studies.
98
A demonstration that the conservative push to disenfranchise people was ineffective would please me greatly. But it wouldn't make me stop fretting about the continued push to disenfranchise people.
We need to feel that voting rights are solid. I suppose that is why people who are convinced that illegal immigrants are out voting in droves will keep supporting it.
Mr. Douthat, the voter ID issue exists minorly as Republican strategy to suppress votes, not at all to protect the vote, and majorly to keep drumming up partisan anger. It is a wedge issue, and the wedge is effective. That is why it will not go away.
The fundamental thing to understand about our divided nation is that the people who are running our political strategies WANT us divided, work hard to keep us divided and drum up division daily. They do it because a wedge issue makes it really cheap to chase the marginal vote. You get 49% on one side, 49% on the other and only have to spend to chase 2%. It is a marketing strategy that is extremely effective.
And as Russian influencers in has shown us in the last election cycle, extremely effective. Absent a uniting disaster, they are here to stay, especially since anyone can now reach mass audiences easily and cheaply.
14
People who oppose Voter ID generally opposed any form of secure IDs. Secure IDs make working off the books or hiring illegal immigrants much harder. Benefits fraud becomes harder. The REAL ID ACT should be fully implemented and every adult American should be automatically registered to vote from the address on their ID. They should pay their taxes from that address. Their children should attend school based on that address. All governments services should be based on that address. The IDs should be issued for free with replacements issued at cost. While I believe there is fraud especially with Senior Citizens absentee ballots, I doubt that it effects many elections. I know there are massive benefits fraud, tax evasion, and illegal immigration which could be reduced with secure IDs.
2
@Mike Having grown up in the 1950's, I remember the threat of Communism and totalitarianism--required IDs for all citizens demanded by a repressive government that watched every movement of its citizens, Communism is no longer a threat but we certainly have embraced the methods of totalitarianism.
14
@Mike
"People who oppose Voter ID generally opposed any form of secure IDs." -- Really? Absent any provable statistics to support it, that's what I'd call a bit of a long stretch. :)
4
Frederick Douglass asserted that three boxes were the key to racial equality in the United States. The cartridge box, the ballot box, and the jury box. While the first is no longer applicable, ballots and jury's are directly related. Its all about the insidious political intent of party policy. Ross Douthat simply ignores the fact that it was 5 Republican appointed Justices that emasculated the Voting Rights act in Shelby, by eliminating the pre clearance provision. This directly lead to the odious voter suppression laws passed in Texas and North Carolina. The newly elected Republican governor in Florida is attempting to interfere with the results of the statewide referendum that returned the voting franchise to 1.4 million convicted felons.The serial Republican efforts to obstruct minority voting is not benign and a threat to the integrity of the American political system.
12
Conservative judge Richard Posner said this far more eloquently than I ever could in his ruling on the voter ID law in Wisconsin: "There is compelling evidence that voter-impersonation fraud is essentially nonexistent in Wisconsin." "There is only one motivation for imposing burdens on voting that are ostensibly designed to discourage voter-impersonation fraud and that is to discourage voting by persons likely to vote against the party responsible for imposing the burdens." Photo ID laws are "highly correlated with a state's having a Republican governor and Republican control of the legislature and appear to be aimed at limiting voting by minorities, particularly blacks." In Wisconsin, according to evidence presented at the trial, the voter ID law would disenfranchise 300,000 residents, or 9% of registered voters.
As someone ostensibly concerned with morality, Ross, one would think you'd pick up that the problem with these laws is that their intent is immoral, even if their execution isn't (always) very effective. This 'ends justifies the means' worldview is even more obvious in the ridiculous gerrymandering in Wisconsin, where the state as a whole can vote overwhelmingly for one party and have the legislature fill up with the other party. The central strategy in the GOP today seems to be that the only way to stay in power is to cheat, and that the benefits of this will outweigh the consequences.
163
@AaronLawson
In Wisconsin, a Republican governor attempted to change the very mission statement of their venerable Land Grant university to be less representative of their citizenry.
In North Carolina, at the nation’s First Public University, Republican minority control (maintained by blatant gerrymandering) changed the mission of the law school’s Poverty Research Center, and redirected its business center to emphasize banking and finance.
Right-wing attacks are multi-faceted but always on point. Citizens United works behind the scene on many fronts. We must provide wider illumination of their false equivalency tactics.
8
"The study finds that requiring voter identification has no effect on turnout — not overall, and not on “any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”"
That is an example that you can buy an "expert report" that will say anything the money man wants to hear.
14
Sorry Ross. I don't believe that voter ID laws came from a sincere place. If they did, they would have been instituted in the same careful manner by which driver's license changes were instituted, where over a period of years, drivers were given warnings that the system was changing and that stronger proof of identity would be needed in the future.
Voter ID laws were rushed in to surprise voters before they could react.
If a generally sincere commentator like Ross cannot understand that, we are sunk.
21
"Despite what many liberals believe, much of the right’s anxiety about voter fraud is sincere...." Conservative on the ground sincerely fear voter fraud because of the lies told to them by conservative leaders and conservative media. So, their fear is based on lies. As you say, cynical Republican leaders push these laws in the hopes that it will help them.
Democrats oppose these laws because it makes it harder to exercise a person's right to vote, and does nothing to prevent real fraud. If these laws haven't been that effective, it's because of real get-out-the-vote efforts that were put in place to counteract these essentially fraudulent laws.
There's no two sides here, Ross. Put the blame where it belongs. Republicans want to make it difficult to vote to improve their chances and to disenfranchise the poor and elderly. Democrats want to include as many legal votes as possible to improve theirs and to enfranchise elderly, poor, and minority voters.
174
@PG You are correct. As in the case of so many issues, to claim there are two sides here is a false equivalency. But there are two reasons behind the voter id laws. One is voter suppression, as you cite. The other is simply so they can have another issue on which they can demagogue, in order to bolster their "us vs. them" message, and increase polarization, thus cementing their base. This is why Mr. Douthat's suggestion that The Republicans drop the issue will likely not happen any time soon.
24
@PG, Yes voter id, like the border wall, is a misdirection to capitalize on Republican xenophobia.
16
There is no doubt that changes in our country’s demographics are forcing conservatives to invent “crises” to keep electoral wins from slipping away. Border security and voter ID laws are fruits that are ripe for the picking by politicians seeking to stoke up whites fearful of losing power.
But just because there is no credible evidence of voter fraud, and just because there is no credible wave of illegal border crossings does not mean legislators should do nothing.
State issued IDs should be made easily accessible to every voting age citizen that wants one. Not only would this disarm the voter fraud conspiracy theorists, but would also provide people with something that could be useful all days of the year, not just the ones when we vote.
24
Maybe Stacy Abrams might want to comment on the effects of voter suppression efforts on elections.
The article argues that on the whole, voter id's are a non issue, except in close races. Id's are just one aspect of the issue.
When in power, republicans do what they can to limit voting, apparentlly hoping to get back to those good old days when voting was restricted to property owning white men.
Democrats, when in power, want more people to vote.
Vive le difference.
24
Declaring that one small part of a broad (and expanding) partisan strategy to deny certain citizens their right to vote is non consequential misses the point. The question is, why is this even happening at all? The data shows that voter fraud is a nonexistent problem that has been promoted by one party to introduce voting restrictions that disproportionately impact the other party. Ross, don’t waste your platform by thinking small and giving cover to the party that wants to disenfranchise your fellow countrymen.
35
"...haunts the right, along with more contemporary fears generated by a left that really does want to extend some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal immigrants."
Haunted. Fearful.
So, Republicans feel haunted and fearful that many people in this country have empathy and --horrors-- may have generous feelings toward other humans.
This says it all about today's Republicans.
63
The biggest myth is that Republicans care about voter fraud. The more Americans vote in any election, the worse the results are for the GOP. Their push for more stringent ID requirements is just another facet of their voter suppression strategy.
369
@Carson Drew
It's not a myth; they care very intently about voter fraud and how best to implement it.
47
@Pat: Touche!
22
Usually, Voter ID laws don't place in a vacuum. They occur in concert with a decrease in polling booths, refusal to upgrade voting machines or provide them in sufficient numbers, resistance to early voting, and, most decisively, gerrymandering. So to say that one card in the Republican disenfranchisement deck--if it were to be used in isolation-- is not that important fails to convince. A more convincing approach would be to measure the cumulative effect of all the varied mechanisms a Republican party dominated by white men use to dampen voter turnout while at the same time acknowledging the Jim Crow history that necessitated the Voters Rights Act, and the immediacy with which these measures were implemented as soon as it was overturned. Finally, one could note the correlation between Voter ID measures and historic Jim Crow laws to expose the true motivations behind them.
272
We have had voter ID for a long time. Every time I would read about people having issues with it in States that wanted to implement it I wondered what all the fuss was about. It’s not a problem. If a person shows up without an ID they can still vote with a provisional ballot and clear up the validity issue after the fact to have their vote count. Most people have their IDs with them anyway so it’s no big deal.
@J-There's no way of validating that provisional ballots get counted. As you're from Virginia worth noting:
Virginia's Board of Elections Scraps Touch-Screen Voting Machines
Virginia decertified its most hackable voting machines
https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/08/virginia-dre-voting-machines-hack
7
@J - The people most likely to be disenfranchised by voter ID laws are the 11% of the population who don't drive, since the driver's license is the most common form of acceptable voter ID. That includes the very elderly, the disabled, some of the poor, and some students. When states also make it very difficult to get the acceptable voter ID, as many do, then that does result in voter disenfranchisement.
2
Maybe the conservatives might see study and consider the information presented opportunity for both parties to unite and pass H.R. 1. It would definitely be a step forward this country.
7
You're leaving out a few things. A requirement for Voter ID may not matter IF that ID is made available to everyone. When the requirement for certain voter IDs (gun licenses count in Texas, but not student IDs) favors certain voters, or is accompanied by reduced voting hours, closing polling stations, reducing the hours at DMV offices, demanding that elderly people produce birth certificates that they may not have access to, sending to certain precincts voting machines without power cords, engaging "signature verification" without scientific method or appropriate software, throwing out registrations (or votes) with no explanation and no attempt to contact voters, it is one piece of a puzzle that sends the very loud message that certain people should not vote. And all of that feeds perceptions and experiences of racism. I can't imagine that this information is news to you - so your cherry picking of the data must be serving another purpose for you.
555
@lrgphd: Great comment.
25
@lrgphd
And you just proved Douhat’s point. Picking the largest study to date is far from cherry picking.
3
@QED
It's not the size of the study nor its newness but its validity that matters.
Douthat is cherry picking by not looking at or mentioning mitigating and tangential factors because Voter Suppression is not just about IDs.
I'm guessing QED that you prize false equivalencies too.
But thank you for not bringing up HRC.
42