The passage of voter identification laws has been a popular political fire-starter in recent years. At their core they make sense–you should have to be who you say you are in order to vote. But in practice there are significantly more nuances, problems, and historical concerns that accompany voter ID laws. Read on to learn about the complicated arguments over voter ID laws.

What is a Voter ID Law?

At its core it’s pretty much exactly what it sounds like–a law requiring that photo identification is shown before a citizen votes. It is used to confirm that the person voting is who she says she is, and that she is in fact registered to vote. Voter ID laws have taken a few different forms in the United States. The National Conference of State Legislatures delineated several different categories of these laws.

Strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least seven states have strict voter ID laws that require photo identification in 2014, including Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. This type of law require that a voter show some sort of government-issued photo ID, usually from a list of acceptable options provided by the state. These laws also usually allow a voter who doesn’t have an approved form of identification to cast a provisional ballot, but require the voter to take extra steps after the ballot has been cast, such as return with an ID a few days later.

Strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least three states have strict voter ID laws not requiring photo identification in 2014, including Arizona, North Dakota, and Ohio. Although these laws don’t require a voter to show photo identification, they do require an approved ID of some sort, such as proof of address or a birth certificate. Again, these lists are curated by the states themselves; however, if that form of identification is not provided, a voter in these states would have to return with it at some point.

Less-strict voter ID laws that require photo ID: At least eight states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, and South Dakota. While states in this category do require photo ID, there are ways around showing it. For example, some states allow a voter to sign an affidavit proving his identity, or to send a letter confirming who he is.

Less-strict voter ID laws that don’t require photo ID: At least 13 states have this level of photo ID at the polls in 2014, including Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington. Voters are required to bring some form of non-photo identification; however, if they don’t they can still vote by signing an affidavit attesting to their identities.

No ID law at all: At least 17 states do not require ID to vote, including California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these states, however, have enacted or are working to enact voter ID laws for future elections.

Voter ID laws are now in 17 more states than they were in 2000. http://t.co/HaPbgUZnnz pic.twitter.com/jop0rVD8Qz

— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) November 1, 2014

What is the argument for voter ID laws?

The Rock the Vote campaigns have lost a little bit of their edge as voter identification laws are increasingly enacted across the country. Supporters of voter ID laws argue that certain measures of identification are necessary to prevent voter fraud and ensure the sanctity of the election process. They also argue that requiring a government-issued ID in order to cast a ballot is not too much too ask, as everyone has some sort of government identification on his or her person at all times.

Voter ID laws have traditionally received support from conservative politicians. As Mitt Romney put it in 2011:

I find it extraordinary that [US Attorney General] Eric Holder is, one more time, making a very serious error [in challenging a South Carolina law that requires a photo ID to vote]… The idea that people should not be able to be identified as they vote so that we can know that they are not voting multiple times. I mean, that’s the purpose here of course. We don’t want people voting multiple times and you can get a photo ID free from your state. You can get it at the time you register to vote…That’s one more lawsuit I’d end if I were president of the United States.

 What’s the argument against voter ID laws?

Those against the bill argue that voter ID laws prevent college students from going to the polls and therefore suppress youth voting, which is already an issue that many organizations work to combat. College students and other young people often don’t have government-issued photo IDs that contain their current addresses, because their permanent residence is often different from where they live during college. There are also allegations that these laws are passed merely for the sake of being passed. Some of the most controversial provisions of the bills seem to be included without much thought and even go unread by those signing them into law.

Some elected officials argue that voter ID laws prevent minority and elderly voters who lack the means to comply with them. Others argue that the laws are American conservatives’ means to subtly discriminate against minority voters. The Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as much as seven percent of Americans don’t have proof of citizenship, and as much as 11 percent don’t have a government-issued photo ID. The reasons for this are myriad–the Brennan Center points out that married women disproportionately don’t have anything to prove their citizenship, because they’ve changed their last names. In addition, the elderly, the poor, and those who don’t have the funds to drive are unlikely to have government-issued photo ID.

Conclusion

In a political landscape that can only possibly be described as polarized, who can vote in an election is certainly at issue. While the idea of voter ID laws makes sense in theory, there are certainly valid questions as to the actual functionality of the laws. It is as much a political issue as an ethical one–it will be interesting to see which of those two competing interests ends up winning out.

Resources

Primary

US House of Representatives: House Bill 589 – Voter Information Verification Act

Additional 

Guardian: Felon Voting Rights Have Bigger Impact Than Voter ID Laws

The New York Times: States Rush to Enact Voting Laws

The New York Times: Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

CNN: Civil Rights Struggle Far From Over

Philly: Voter ID’s Fate Now In Judge’s Hands

Brennan Center: Citizens Without Proof

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Voter ID Laws: Are They Necessary? appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.