« House | Main | Border Issues »
February 23, 2006
Rendell Vetoes Voting ID Bill
Ed Rendell announced the other day he will veto a bill that would require people to show ID to vote. Although I do not know the specifics of the bill, I am generally in favor of any procedure that prevents people form voting more than once per election and picture IDs are one of the best ways to do that. From the story below, it looks like Pennsylvania voters are already required to show picture ID the first time they vote at a polling place and that may be enough to prevent some multiple votes fraud. Indelible ink might be more effective and although I have heard reasonable objections to photo ID requirements (that I disagree with) I have not heard any good arguments against indelible ink if voting occurs on only one day. Here is the story:
On Presidents' Day at the National Constitution Center, Gov. Rendell announced his veto of a bill that would have required all voters to show identification when they go to the polls.Rendell said that the bill, which passed the legislature last week on largely parti-line votes, would have the effect of disenfranchising those without easy access to identification, including nursing-home residents, displaced families, the very poor and those without a driver's license.
In addition, he said that the identification requirement, which now applies only to people voting at a polling place for the first time, would slow the voting process on election days, likely causing some would-be voters who are pressed for time to leave without casting ballots.
Here is my full list of suggestions.
Update 2/24/06: Jeff asks What are the arguments against having to show ID to vote?
The first argument is that it amounts to a poll tax, but this only applies if you require a fee for state issued ID cards. Make the ID free and that argument goes away. I think state ID cards should be free anyways or at least free to people below the poverty line because they are a basic requirement of not being poor in today's world.
The second tougher argument I have heard is that it is too difficult for people without transportation such as the poor and the elderly to get an ID. Although the vast majority of Americans use government photo IDs all the time (for instance, I just used mine on Wednesday when applying for a loan and on Thursday when I went to the bank to cash a check) I can see someone in an old folks home letting their ID expire and it being a big deal for them to go out and get a new one. I think the solution to this is to make it convenient to get IDs by having things like mobile ID stations. Georgia's plan for requiring a photo ID was struck down by a judge a few months ago because it was too hard for many people to get a photo ID in Georgia.
If you read a blog like sound politics you can see how easy it is for voter fraud to get out of hand. Picture IDs help to stop people registering when not eligible to vote in some situations (underage, not a person, non-resident, etc.), help to prevent people from voting under false names or addresses, and help to prevent people registering multiple times. Almost more important than picture Ids is the need to clean up voting roles and make sure that people are only registered once and are registered legally. A big problem with this debate is that there are some people who are really concerned with poor and old people getting to vote and other people who are against clean elections if it causes their side to lose, but only claim to be protecting the weak and it is sometimes hard to tell who is in which group.
Posted by Pete at February 23, 2006 06:42 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.petetheelder.com/mt-tb.cgi/744
Comments
I'm intrigued. What are the arguments against having to show ID to vote? I can't imagine anything logical.
Posted by: Jeff at February 24, 2006 01:27 PM