I think we’re going to have start calling these Voter ID laws something more memorable. I prefer “Jim Crow-Lite Laws” because, despite a small degree of hyperbole, the aim of these laws is to address the fact that blacks and Latinos don’t vote for Republicans by making it so a substantial portion of blacks and Latinos cannot vote at all. These Jim Crow-Lite laws will begin passing in every state in the country where the Republicans have the power to ram them through. They hope it will buy them a little extra time as a viable political party.
I’ve talked to a lot of people about Voter ID laws over the years and I can tell you that suburban Americans just don’t understand how someone can go through life without a state-issued picture ID. They think it’s totally reasonable to make it a requirement that someone present a state-issued picture ID at the polls if they want to vote. But, here’s the reality:
According to the South Carolina State Elections Commission, “roughly 180,000 of South Carolina’s registered voters have neither a state-issued driver’s license nor photo ID.” Although the bill waives the five dollar fee for a state ID for residents older than 17, it immediately disenfranchises eight percent of registered voters in the state, not including those newly- registered individuals.
Let me make this as clear as I can. There is no epidemic of voter fraud in this country. People who are not eligible to vote do not vote. If we have an epidemic, it’s the opposite; people who are eligible to vote are staying home. Voter ID laws are ostensibly about making sure people are who they say they are, but there’s a reason that only Republicans are interested in enacting these laws. What they want is to limit the number of minorities who vote. Period. And they don’t care that they are disenfranchising a bunch of elderly people, too, who no longer drive and have no other need for a photo ID.
It’s a racist, voter suppression drive. That’s all it is. It isn’t what they say it is. As someone who spent a year of my life working to register voters in our inner cities, I can tell you that a lot of young urban people do not have a driver’s license because they don’t have a car. And they don’t have a state-issued photo ID because they don’t need one. If you make having a photo ID a condition for voting, you are definitely going to limit these kids’ representation in the electorate. And that’s the point.
It’s a voter suppression drive alright, but I would disagree that its motivated by racism. The racial effect of this form of voter suppression is a side effect. The republicans have simply identified a group of voters who vote democratic on average and are trying to disenfranchise them. The race of this group is irrelevant; they could have been Norwegian and the repugs would act the same way — they would exploit weaknesses in voting laws, and pass new laws, to suppress the vote of the group. It may be unethical, but its not racist. We should definitely fight this, but overplaying the race card can backfire with some voting groups.
And I would argue that their motivation is irrelevant. The effect is racist. This is called institutional racism, and it’s a concept many whites willfully don’t want to get: it’s not about us. (It always has to be about us, right?) It’s about the institution, the system that’s being set up, and it’s about the results that system produce. In this case those results are unquestionably discriminatory.
Many whites hear the word “racist” and immediately get defensive and shut down. I happen to disagree with you; I think a lot of people who support these laws are motivated by a set of assumptions about the mostly dark-skinned people impacted by these laws, and that those assumptions are, in fact, racist. But we can disagree on that; it doesn’t matter. Because no matter what their motivations are, even if they’re operating from a pure concern for the integrity of our fine representative democracy (is that puke in the back of my throat?), the result is the same. Even if some of the advocates’ best friends are black (why, yes, yes, it is puke in the back of my throat), the impact is racist. It discriminates in a way that clearly correlates to skin color. Period.
How we portray it to the public is a different issue, and one worth debating; it’s true that slinging around the “r” word, no matter how accurate and appropriate it might be, often isn’t helpful in these situations. People (by which, of course, I mean white people) hear “racist” and feel personally attacked even when it’s results, not motivation or behavior, being discussed. But we can at least be clear about what the laws are. Booman is right on the money.
Here we get into an argument over the definition of racism. You argue that a law is racist merely if it negatively impacts one race disproportionately. Is that really all that is required? You catch a lot of good hearted people in that net, who support the given law for reasons other than racism. They might take offense to being branded as racist. A good way to lose voters.
clearskies,
The racism in these attempts arises because the frenzy has been provoked by the election of a President with African ancestry.
From the perspective of the proponents of these laws, this was an affront to the proper order of the universe. As many of the Tea Party signs proclaimed, “They want their country back!”
This is a sad replay of the Redemption Movements in the post-civil war south. At that time, the “white knights” wanted to redeem their state governments from “Black Republicans” and Freedmen. They used almost identical slogans and tactics as the Tea Party movement and its corporate masters use today.
If the voter ID laws impact a few white people, that is okay with these folks just as the Redeemers were willing to terrorize and/or kill white people who supported the Freedmen.
And this is one reason I don’t really care if there is ever a national ID. It’s not like the government doesn’t already know everything it wants to about you.
If you are organizing GOTV for 2012, better start now. It’s now a four-step process. And for now assume that every state will move in this direction, whether that is currently apparent or not.
Step 1: Obtain certified copies of proof of citizenship. That means folks are going to have to write for their birth certificates or citizenship papers unless they currently have those. This is where the fees are going to reduce participation.
Step 2: Obtain State ID (even if you have a drivers license, get one; Sergeant Schweik their rules).
Step 3: Register to vote.
Step 4: Get to the polls.
Strategize to get steps 1, 2, and 3 done for as many people possible by the time to allow a trial run of step 4 in the primaries.
Likely the “They don’t want you to vote” story can be a great motivator this year because it is demonstrably the fact. It is not subtle at all.
We win when we are more relentless than they are.
Steps 1 and 2 are not required in Illinois. But I agree the law may change. Right now, what is required is two forms of ID, one of which must have a photo and one of which must have an address. The driver’s license satisfies both but a second ID, usually a credit or debit card with the voter’s name is required. An employer photo ID or student ID works too. Verification of citizenship is not required but if native, you must supply your birth date and state of birth. If naturalized, you must supply the date and of naturalization and the court that administered the oath (i.e. Cook County Circuit Court). Presumably, someone at the county board of elections is at least randomly checking this. Your statements are under oath, so if you lie, you have committed perjury.
The City might be different, but virtually everyone in the suburbs has a driver’s license. The rest have state ID’s. You can’t cash a check or rent an apartment without them. A medicaid card is ID also, but you still need one form with a photo to register. This is why I am cool toward denouncing requirements for photo ID at the polling place. You needed one to register (at least in Illinois you do), so why not show it when you vote?
Step 2 may be impossible. I don’t have a driver’s license. I have looked over the rules for obtaining a Wisconsin State ID (which I will need if I ever want to vote again), and I don’t see how I can get one. You need certain very limited and specific types of photo ID, and in order to get any kind of photo ID, you need to have a pre-existing photo ID. If you don’t already have one, it seems impossible to ever get one, unless I’m missing something.
Requiring a photo ID in order to get a photo ID seems to be the sort of catch-22 that could be challenged in court.
There are a lot of already registered voters who are going to be pissed. As soon as the ink dries on the governor’s signature, it is time to let them know that they have another hoop to jump through. No doubt some folks think that it doesn’t apply to them, but only to “fraudulent voters”.
You make a good point.
Do drivers licenses require a photo ID? Seems like if that is the case, only kids with a high school annual picture can get drivers licenses.
Would a notarized photo attested to by witnesses who know your identity get around this?
Call your local Democratic Party office and ask them about this issue and what they suggest.
I am having some difficulty establishing what is really needed to get a voter ID card in Wisconsin, partly because the requirements as stated on the WI Dept. of Transportation make so little sense.
You have to submit proof of birth date, name, citizenship, identity, and Wisconsin residency. There are some anomalies. A valid US passport is not one of the documents that can be used to prove your identity (though it is acceptable for birth date, name, and citizenship).
Apparently, though a passport doesn’t establish your identity, a social security card does. I lost mine in a mugging, and never bothered to replace it, since in my entire life nobody has ever asked to see my social security card. My social security card did not have a photo. Have the cards changed since then?
In any event, suppose that it is possible for every Wisconsin resident who is 18 years old to supply the state with enough documentation to get the voter ID card. It is still very unlikely that many will do so. In a sense, it is irrational that people ever bother to vote, since there is almost no chance that a single vote will affect the outcome of any election except for a neighborhood district representative or a local small town or village post. As the state makes it more difficult and time-consuming to vote, fewer people are going to bother to do so.
Also, the Democrats are going to have to spend a lot of money educating people about how to qualify to vote. That is money that is not going to be available for supporting candidates. And I don’t see the outrage at this which is going to make people give more money. I think Booman is right here. Suburban folks just don’t think showing a driver’s license is anything to get worked up about.
At every election, I refuse to show my picture ID. I am then directed to vote a provisional ballot. The precinct supervisor always asks why I don’t produce my ID, and I explain that I believe it to be a form of voter suppression, which is what I also write on the ballot where it questions me on the issue.
Enough people at the polls witness this exercise, and I hope one day my small act of rebellion will at least cause some these folks to think about what they are doing every time they acquiesce in giving up some rights.
::
I’ve been saying that they are VOTER SUPPRESSION LAWS. Glad to see other folks saying the same..
of course, they’re racist.
Literacy Tests, Poll Taxes….VOTED ID LAWS…….
same types of folks.