Photo Identification
Requiring photo identification of voters has been a hot issue in Georgia. (Dan Tokaji at Equal Vote Blog has an excellent listing of recent articles on this matter.) The issue is also garnering some attention in Alabama.
It seems to me that the two sides ('pro-photo-ID,' 'anti-photo-ID,' if I may use such a simplistic typology) have similar goals -- ensuring that those who are eligible to vote may do so and those who are not eligible are prevented from doing so -- but they are talking past one another due to their respective focus on different aspects of the issue of election integrity. (Yes, I understand that not all self-proclaimed advocates of free, fair and honest elections have pure motives; some do wish to discriminate against those with whom they disagree or against those of different socio-economic class, color or ethnicity.)
The two sides do not seem to come together in the middle to acknowledge there is a nexus between their issues that concerns the overall integrity of the democratic process.
In the abstract, there is nothing wrong with the contention that a person should validate her identity prior to voting. Voting is a sacred part of self-governance. We should indeed preserve the integrity of the election system. If we were creating a new election system, from whole cloth, with current notions of identification, then perhaps we would from the get-go require people to present photo identification to authenticate who they are.
But we are not creating a new system. We are refining a system that has evolved in our state and country over a hundred and more years time. In the conduct of elections over that great amount of time, we have garnered much experience that has enabled us to strengthen the elections process and make participation more fair. However, the system we have inherited also comes with the baggage of history and human passions, two considerations that make it incumbent upon us to carefully assess changes we might make in the way we voters are afforded the opportunity to select those individuals who will represent us. It is not nearly enough to say, "let's do this because it's a splendid idea."
We must look at each "splendid" idea in the context of our history in the areas of civil rights, in general, and voting rights, in particular. We must consider the power of human passions and ensure that untoward passions do not gain sway and lead us down paths that are inconsistent with the values embodied in our Constitution and our representative form of government.
The movement to require photo identification has not surfaced in a vacuum. Litigation, prosecution and anecdotal reports show that we should pay attention to the issue of voter fraud. We should be willing to make reasonable and justifiable adjustments to our elections process to address documented problems and to ensure that voter fraud does not undermine the integrity of that system.
Similarly, though, photo identification proposals come on the heals of policies that served a strong gatekeeper role, mechanisms that arbitrarily limited the population of people who could participate in self-governance: property ownernship requirements, poll taxes, literacy tests, minimum voting age of 21, unreasonable lengths of time on durational residency requirements, and the ban on women's suffrage.
As the court noted in its discussion and analysis of issues in the case Harrison v. Siegelman [695 F. Supp. 517 (M.D. Ala. 1988)], the way a state implements the mechanisms of election administration can have an effect not only on whether individuals are able to exercise their right to vote but also on whether they feel welcome to do so as or intimidated to not do so.
The two sides of the photo identification debate should build a bridge between them so that whatever policies that are adopted are meaningful, fair and realistic; that they act in furtherance of representative democracy, not to place it in jeopardy by human error or human self-interest.
- Beth Chapman, Alabama's current state Auditor and announced candidate for Secretary of State, says she supports the requirement.
- D'Linell Finley, a professor of political science at Auburn University in Montgomery, and Wendy Weiser, associate counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, argued in the November 27, 2005, edition of The Tuscaloosa News that a photo identification requirement will do more harm than good and will lead to significant numbers of Alabamians being denied their right to vote.
- Perry Beasley, co-chair of the west Alabama Democracy Defense League, provides a point-by-point refutation of the Finley/Weiser essay in the December 4, 2005, issue of The Tuscaloosa News.
- In the December 6, 2005, edition of The Tuscaloosa News, Faye Cochran, chair of the Hale County Board of Registrars, also responded to the Finley/Weiser piece, contending that voters should be willing to put forth the same level effort to vote that they put forth to receive Social Security and other forms of "government aid."
It seems to me that the two sides ('pro-photo-ID,' 'anti-photo-ID,' if I may use such a simplistic typology) have similar goals -- ensuring that those who are eligible to vote may do so and those who are not eligible are prevented from doing so -- but they are talking past one another due to their respective focus on different aspects of the issue of election integrity. (Yes, I understand that not all self-proclaimed advocates of free, fair and honest elections have pure motives; some do wish to discriminate against those with whom they disagree or against those of different socio-economic class, color or ethnicity.)
- Photo ID proponents tell us that voter fraud is a reality and that photo identification is an important tool in combatting that fraud.
- Photo ID opponents tell us that the rigth to vote is so important that that we cannot permit the government to adopt any requirements that place a burden on the exercise of that right.
The two sides do not seem to come together in the middle to acknowledge there is a nexus between their issues that concerns the overall integrity of the democratic process.
In the abstract, there is nothing wrong with the contention that a person should validate her identity prior to voting. Voting is a sacred part of self-governance. We should indeed preserve the integrity of the election system. If we were creating a new election system, from whole cloth, with current notions of identification, then perhaps we would from the get-go require people to present photo identification to authenticate who they are.
But we are not creating a new system. We are refining a system that has evolved in our state and country over a hundred and more years time. In the conduct of elections over that great amount of time, we have garnered much experience that has enabled us to strengthen the elections process and make participation more fair. However, the system we have inherited also comes with the baggage of history and human passions, two considerations that make it incumbent upon us to carefully assess changes we might make in the way we voters are afforded the opportunity to select those individuals who will represent us. It is not nearly enough to say, "let's do this because it's a splendid idea."
We must look at each "splendid" idea in the context of our history in the areas of civil rights, in general, and voting rights, in particular. We must consider the power of human passions and ensure that untoward passions do not gain sway and lead us down paths that are inconsistent with the values embodied in our Constitution and our representative form of government.
The movement to require photo identification has not surfaced in a vacuum. Litigation, prosecution and anecdotal reports show that we should pay attention to the issue of voter fraud. We should be willing to make reasonable and justifiable adjustments to our elections process to address documented problems and to ensure that voter fraud does not undermine the integrity of that system.
Similarly, though, photo identification proposals come on the heals of policies that served a strong gatekeeper role, mechanisms that arbitrarily limited the population of people who could participate in self-governance: property ownernship requirements, poll taxes, literacy tests, minimum voting age of 21, unreasonable lengths of time on durational residency requirements, and the ban on women's suffrage.
As the court noted in its discussion and analysis of issues in the case Harrison v. Siegelman [695 F. Supp. 517 (M.D. Ala. 1988)], the way a state implements the mechanisms of election administration can have an effect not only on whether individuals are able to exercise their right to vote but also on whether they feel welcome to do so as or intimidated to not do so.
The two sides of the photo identification debate should build a bridge between them so that whatever policies that are adopted are meaningful, fair and realistic; that they act in furtherance of representative democracy, not to place it in jeopardy by human error or human self-interest.
posted by Ed at 6:30 AM
5 comments
links to this post
