Whenever attempts have been made to ensure the integrity of our electoral process by making it harder for those not eligible to vote to cast a ballot at the polls cries of racism and voter suppression have erupted across the social landscape.
This always perplexed a lot of ordinary citizens who wondered, perhaps naively, why anyone would object to making it more difficult for non-citizens to vote in our elections.
One such attempt to tighten up election security is legislation to require voters to produce an identification at the polls to show that they are in fact citizens. This seemed to many to be a common sense measure since ID is required at so many other venues in our everyday life. Indeed, it's hard to imagine getting through a week without having to produce an ID somewhere for something.
The ostensible objection to requiring ID to vote, however, is that it would place an undue burden on the poor who could not be expected to do whatever was necessary to procure an ID card. This objection seems insulting to the poor, assuming as it does that being poor makes one a helpless invalid, and it struck many Americans as such a feeble rationale for opposing voter ID that suspicions were raised that it was disingenuous.
Nevertheless, that argument has largely prevailed in many precincts despite its lack of cogency.
Now, however, comes word that a recent study has shown that, to the extent that these concerns are sincere, they're misplaced. The study concludes that voter ID laws are not unfairly onerous for any segment of our population.
Here's Angela Morabito at The Federalist:
Voter ID requirements do not affect voter turnout, according to a new working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The researchers looked at 1.3 billion data points on U.S. voters from 2008 to 2013, and they found that “the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”There's much more on this in Morabito's article and those interested in this issue are encouraged to read it. She goes on to point out, for example, that:
For years, opponents of voter ID laws have equated them with disenfranchisement. The American Civil Liberties Union says “voter ID laws deprive many voters of their right to vote” and that they “reduce participation.” Writing for CNN Politics, reporter Eric Bradner addressed voter ID requirements as “discriminatory voting laws.” The Democratic Party’s official website addresses voter ID laws as if they are anathema to democracy.
As it turns out, none of their fears about voter ID were backed up by this large study. This is great news: The country can now take obvious steps to protect the integrity of our elections, knowing that enacting voter ID laws will not disenfranchise anyone.
Of the eight states that require photo identification at the polls, all of them issue voter ID cards to their citizens free of charge. Of the 10 states that request photo identification, four issue ID cards at no cost. The other six allow voters without photo ID to cast their ballots so long as they verify their identity another way, like with a signature that matches the one on their registration.One would think that with these examples in view, and the results of this study in hand, a lot of other states would be eager to pass their own voter ID laws, but, since this would depend upon the common sense and honesty of those who populate our political establishments, we probably shouldn't be optimistic.