The fight over voter identification has reemerged in a number of states as the 2010 midterm elections approach and politicians seize upon the issue to further polarize the electorate. The issue, however, remains divisive.
Proponents of identification requirements claim that, despite the lack of evidence of significant voter fraud, requiring voters to show identification will ensure the integrity of elections and prevent fraud. Opponents counter by pointing out that requiring identification makes it harder for people to vote, particularly for elderly, disabled, and lower-income Americans.
Currently, eight states exceed Help America Vote Act voter identification requirements by enacting laws that require voters to show some form of picture identification before receiving a ballot. Florida, Georgia, Indiana, and Louisiana all require that the identification be government issued, while Hawaii, Michigan, South Dakota, and most recently, Idaho allow other forms of photo ID. The voter identification issue looms in Iowa, as all three candidates vying for the Republican nomination for secretary of state have advocated reducing “voter fraud”—which is currently non-existent; two of these candidates—Matt Schultz and Christopher Sanger—have expressly called for an identification requirement.
The South Carolina legislature is also working on passing a bill that will require voters to show identification before voting, but legislatures around the country have found passing voter identification legislation increasingly difficult. In South Carolina, for example, the legislature is in gridlock over its photo ID bill as policymakers fight over a “compromise” early voting provision. (Adding an early voting provision to voter ID bills is a recent trend to tempt skeptical legislators.) The Missouri state legislature recently failed to pass an identification requirement bill for the fifth consecutive year.
Other states have gone beyond the legislatures to make it harder for their citizens to vote. Advocates in Mississippi collected enough signatures for a petition to put the issue on the ballot for 2011. The state legislature considered the issue in recent sessions, but did not pass a law. In Nevada, an assemblyman seeking the Republican nomination for the state’s Senate seat has filed a petition to get the Nevada legislature to consider voter identification. The petition must have 97,002 signatures to put the issue before the legislature: if the legislature rejects or does not act on the issue, Nevada voters will have the opportunity to vote on it in 2012.
Despite the divisiveness, photo voter identification requirements remain a contentious, but mobilizing issue in the realm of voting rights, especially since the U.S. Supreme Court approved Indiana’s strict voter ID law in 2008. This dangerous trend has the potential to effectively disenfranchise thousands of voters and to cost states millions of dollars at a time when few can afford to be so fiscally irresponsible. Though many Americans have a driver’s license or some other form of ID, there are many more who do not drive and do not have the resources to obtain a current and valid government issued ID that includes current address (for mobile populations) or even current last name (for some recently married people). Further, scarce resources for some may include money, time, or even original citizenship documents to obtain an ID in the first place. These citizens have a right to vote and should not be prevented from doing so in the name of preventing a problem that does not exist.
Billy Scott is a legal intern with Project Vote.