The Government Accountability Office (GAO) this week issued a report on “Issues Related to State Voter Identification Laws.” You can read the report Here (.pdf).
Kaveh Waddell at the National Journal writes, Here’s How Much It Costs to Vote in States With Voter ID Laws:
Thirty-three states require all eligible voters to show ID at the polling station and, in doing so, add a hidden cost to voting: While casting a ballot is technically free, getting proper identification is not. Many voter-ID laws came about after Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, which was intended to address concerns of voter fraud and irregularity in the 2000 presidential election. While concerns about fraud are widespread, research shows that it occurs very rarely.
The cost of obtaining an ID affects voter participation, and can disproportionately drive down turnout among African-American voters and 18-to-23-year-olds.
The Government Accountability Office studied the effect that voter-ID laws have on turnout in the 17 states that require voters to show government-issued ID at the polls. Driver’s licenses and state-issued IDs are the two most common forms of identification, and they don’t run cheap. An inexpensive driver’s license will set you back just under $15, but some states’ cost almost $60.
Sixteen of the 17 states in the study offer a free alternative to driver’s licenses or state IDs for residents. But even these free IDs aren’t really free: to get one, residents must prove their identity and usually have to pay to obtain a separate identification document. Getting a birth certificate, one of the most common kinds of documents applicants use, can cost as much as $25.
[This is technically a “poll tax” in violation of the 24th Amendment, but the U.S. Supreme Court turns a blind eye and says otherwise.]
This table shows, for each of the 17 states that require a government-issued ID to vote, the cost for a driver’s license, a non-driver’s license ID, and whether or not the state issues free IDs for voting. Most free IDs, however, have hidden costs attached. (GAO)
These costs may not seem high, but they have an effect on voter turnout. GAO analyzed participation numbers from the 2008 and 2012 general elections in a sample of six states with varying laws and found that turnout decreased more in the two states with voter-ID laws—Kansas and Tennessee—than in the four without—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine. The difference is attributable to the ID laws, the report says.
But not all voters are affected equally by these laws. In both Kansas and Tennessee, turnout was particularly low for voters between 18 and 23, African-American voters, and new voters—individuals who had registered within the year before an election. GAO is careful to note that these results cannot yet be generalized further than these two states.
Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a virtually non-existent problem: voter impersonation at the polls. The real reason for voter ID laws is not voter fraud, but rather voter suppression of “those people” most likely to vote Democratic: the old, the young, the poor, and minorities, who disproportionately do not possess the necessary documents to obtain an ID, or have the financial means to obtain them.
And then there are state laws that selectively discriminate on the type of ID which qualifies, such as in the state of Texas which does not accept college photo ID cards, but does accept gun permits. Texas Voter ID Law Rejects Student ID’s, Accepts Gun Permits. Not so subtle. So let’s just drop all the pretense about voter ID and call it what it is: voter suppression of “those people” who tend to vote Democratic.
Elections are won on very narrow margins, frequently just a few thousand or even just a few hundred votes, sometimes even less. The ability to suppress certain voters from voting is how elections are “won” (sic) in the margins.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Point 1. You had some food. Some go without. Don’t assume people can put aside a dollar a month. And even if they could, there are a million necessary items that cost money that just happen out of nowhere, and there goes that dollar.
Point 2. Show me evidence of your claim.
Point 3. Dark money funding candidates as election policy is hardly gratuitous. It’s a fraudulent practice meant to influence elections, just like voter suppression.
Point 4. You rephrased exactly what I said. There is no reason why voting should be easy and convenient in one state and not another. That violates Equal Protection. (Another great SCOTUS act, excusing those red states from the Justice Dept monitoring of the Voting Rights Act.) And voter ID does not stop the 1 in a billion person who registers and votes in multiple places.
Have a nice day, Steve.
More……time to wake up!
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/12/19/3082371/racial-voter-suppression-study/
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/study-finds-voter-id-laws-hurt-young-minorities-88773.html
Considering that this demographic largely votes for Democratic candidates…that’s EXACTLY what these laws were intended to do! For those that scream “Freedom!” from the rooftops, this is THE most important freedom of all, and it’s being taken away, widdled down, made harder, not easier, for Americans to do. If you aren’t upset about this, you don’t understand the severity.
There is not a voter fraud problem..it is a made up issue. The only voter fraud going on is all this bs of keeping eligible voters from voting!
The voter fraud that IS around, looks like this:
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10840
GOP Furious That Arkansas’ Republican AG Candidate Removed From Voting Rolls After Confirmation of Multi-State Registration, Voting
Still pushing the liberal canard that requiring you prove who you are when you vote disenfranchises thousands of voters? The idea that for the cost of one to four 12-packs of beer (depending on the identification being acquired) a person is deprived of their right to vote is ridiculous. And SCOTUS is correct that it is not a poll tax, it is an indicator of their priorities in life. Accumulating $15 to $60 over a two year period (an election cycle) is not a burden regardless of your income, and it ensures the integrity of our voting system.
I read your reference and it was not a convincing testament to the correctness of your position. First of all, who is Judge Adelman? It gives no background on who he is, who appointed him, his political affiliation, or anything else about his background. And even he indicates his ruling is likely to be overturned. The discussion about the five year study by the Bush Administration found no evidence of “organized efforts” at voter fraud, but that doesn’t mean individuals don’t effect voter fraud. And the author who compared prosecutions for voter fraud to prosecutions for migratory bird laws is comparing apples to oranges. Most migatory bird law violations are handled by fines, not by prosecution.
You fear these laws will keep Democrat prone voters from voting. I fear the lack of these laws will allow people who are not legally allowed to do so (whether Democrat prone or not) to vote.
Point 1: You and the SCOTUS plutocrats obviously have never lived in poverty, if you think $15-$60 dollars is negligible. If it means my kids eat, or I vote, the kids eat.
Point 2: There are few incidences of voter fraud; certainly not enough to warrant such stringent laws. (The Washington Post reports 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast, including one by a supporter of Scott Walker registering and voting in multiple districts.)
Point 3: The biggest voter fraud ever enacted is Citizens United which equates money with free speech, allowing unfettered access for billionaires to influence elections anywhere and everywhere.
Point 4: The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection. Why should it be harder to vote in a red state than a blue state?
Thank you for your response! I appreciate your taking time to respond.
Point 1: I have been poor. Beans and Rice five nights a week poor. My wife and I had to work hard to move up and out of poverty. We scrimped and saved and worked our way up the economic scale. We often had to set aside small amounts of money to accumulate for specific goals. If we wanted it, we did it. You drive so you already have the needed photo ID. But if you didn’t, I find it hard to believe that setting aside $1 a month would hurt your finances.
Point 2: I find the Washington Post’s story a bit incredible, unless they left Chicago out of their sampling. Chicago still has dead people voting despite years of trying to clean up the voter corruption the City is noted for.
Point 3: This is a gratuitous comment that constitutes your opinion on something that has nothing to do with voter fraud. Photo ID has nothing to do with this issue, either.
Point 4: Then let us have voter ID in ALL states. Of course, even if we did that it would still be harder to vote in some states than others because each state has control over it’s internal voter processes and some will just be tougher than others.