Tyler Bilbo, Staff Writer
Ideology: Democrat | Writing From: Tulsa, OK
The following is the first installment in a series on the Republican Party’s effort to prevent a participatory Democracy from flourishing in America. The issue I tackle today: Photo ID legislation
A pioneer of today’s conservative movement, Paul Weyrich mobilized conservative voters more readily than Ronald Reagan cut taxes. In the formative stages of the Reagan Revolution, he revealed how turnout functions as the fundamental determinant of the Republican Party’s electoral success.
“I don’t want everybody to vote,” Weyrich declared. “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”
Few of his allies in the conservative movement have repeated those candid remarks of nearly 30 years ago. Nevertheless, it’s impossible to envision the successes of the Republican Party if its leaders were not conscious of the reality that voter participation spells disaster for American conservatism.
What’s even more striking about Weyrich’s candor is that it directly contradicts the widely held belief among Republicans that neither party stands to gain from high turnout elections. Ronald Reagan won both of his elections in cycles where turnout was above fifty percent. In 2000, George W. Bush was re-elected despite turnout exceeding Clinton’s 1996 victory. But Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush nearly maximized turnout among core Republican constituencies. When historically low turnout demographics like Hispanics, African Americans and the working poor come to the polls, however, Democrats win.
Photo ID legislation is the latest front in the GOP’s ongoing assault on voter participation. A convenient wedge issue that preys on racism and xenophobia, the photo id issue is a solution in search of a problem. The Republican spin-machine illustrates an illegitimate electoral system hampered by voter fraud. The cure-all prescription that Republicans herald in photo legislation, however, only tackles voter impersonation, one of the most uncommon and least consequential forms of voter fraud.
The GOP propaganda goes something like this: Scores of Democrats are voting in place of other electors in an organized effort to rig elections. Requiring voters to show a specified form of photo identification would effectively eliminate this problem.The logic is appealing. Who wants to show up on election day to have a poll worker tell you that you’ve already voted?
Not everyone has a state-issued photo ID, however. Those who do not are disproportionately lower-income families in minority communities.
In 2006, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott launched an unprecedented investigation into what he called an “epidemic of voter fraud.” Three years and 1.4 million taxpayer dollars later, Abbott’s investigation has turned up less than thirty cases that almost exclusively dealt with innocent technical errors involving mail-in ballots (virtually none of the cases dealt with in-person impersonation- the form of fraud that photo ID laws attempt to curb). Needless to say, a few dozen fraudulent ballots distributed across the state certainly don’t constitute the unstoppable epidemic that Abbott described at the commencement of his investigation.
The photo ID requirement is simply a very clever maneuver by the Republicans to suppress turnout among core Democratic constituencies. While a photo ID requirement might combat a tiny handful of voter impersonation cases, it would potentially disenfranchise thousands of the state’s poorest citizens. Instead of conceiving schemes to suppress voter participation, we should be doing whatever we can to increase our Democracy’s relatively low turnout. Unfortunately, however, the health of our Democracy is not immune to partisan politics.
This is clearly just liberal propaganda. I would think a liberal of your caliber would be for such an act considering how Bush “stole” the 2000 election. However I’m sure if we gave the census to the White House all of these problems would probably be solved or maybe yet why don’t we let ACORN run the census that would guarantee a fair election. Maybe the can dig up some of the old Kennedy voters. My counter argument has already been articulated by a fellow Conservative but this sort of liberal propaganda is what’s wrong with America today.
This is a good topic to write on, I don’t think all that many people really give it too much thought. The quotation from the Republican strategist is a variation on the theme that almost every campaign worker knows: turnout matters. More specifically, who turns out matters. Campaigns offer rides to the polls and absentee ballots to their supporters because they are trying to ensure that their supporters vote (similarly I don’t know of too many campaigns that offer rides to their opponents’ supporters). However, there is a substantial difference between what these campaigns do on election day and what Republicans try to do in Congress or the courts. Many of the laws described in this posting try to ensure “the integrity of the vote” in ways that are discriminatory to poorer voters (a fairly Democratic constituency). Voter ID laws are a good example of this. Not everyone has a drivers license or passport and requiring them can be a significant hardship to people who want to vote. These laws deter people from voting for no reason (I’m pretty glued to the news and I’ve never heard of serious voting irregularities resulting from a lack of voter ID). Also in response to the previous poster: you don’t think there were problems in the 2000 election? Ask the 20,000 people who were removed from the voting lists in Florida (in a program commissioned by–guess who–Jeb Bush) because their names were similar to those of convicted felons (they themselves weren’t). Thats pretty close to a stolen election in my book.
First of all, I do not equate minorities with being poor. I refer specifically to poor minority communities who, along with all poor people, would be disproportionately disenfranchised by such stringent voting requirements.
I did not mention ACORN because the constant demonization of the organization is an irrelevant distraction from the real issue of voter suppression. Here’s what would have to happen in order for “Donald Duck” or any improperly registered Disney character to cast a vote: Donald Duck’s registration card would go to the board of elections for approval. If the card somehow manages to clear that checkpoint, “Donald Duck” would have to show up at the polls and vote with some form of identification, especially if he is a first time voter. This would have to happen thousands of times in order for this to swing an election.
But enough about ACORN and the ridiculous slander against such a valiant organization. You claim that voter participation would remain unaffected among those who currently do not have a photo ID if such requirements were to pass. That is absurd. Voters still have to take the time to request a photo ID. For a desperately poor mother working 2 jobs with 4 kids, that time isn’t available. Not only does she have to request the photo ID, she has to locate the nearest Bureau of Motor Vehicles Branch, somehow get there (which would be especially difficult for someone who doesn’t drive) and get back to the house. The cost of that ID may not be in dollars but please don’t tell me that it isn’t costing this mother anything to get that unnecessary piece of identification.Furthermore, not all states that have proposed photo ID legislation provide for an I.D. that is of no charge to the voter. Here in my homestate of Oklahoma, the original photo I.D. bill in this past session would not have covered the charges for photo ID requests.
Even when these I.D’s are offered for free, the taxpayer is ultimately picking up the tab. In Oklahoma, free I.Ds would have cost upwards of one million dollars that our state does not have to combat fraud that is not happening. For a party that claims to be all about limiting government, these unnecessary requirements set up an unprecedented amount of red tape that voters have to cut through in order to simply cast a vote.
Tyler, I can understand where you’re coming from and I sympathize with your concerns. However, if not through photo ID, how do you suggest we verify that voters are who they say they are? The mere existence of voter fraud is a huge problem, and both parties have utilized it in some shape or form throughout our country’s history. As democratic as we are, the execution of our elections still has a few kinks. Photo ID legislation may not be bulletproof, but it’s still a step in the right direction.
Michele,
I respectfully disagree with the following:
“The mere existence of voter fraud is a huge problem.”
The type of fraud that photo IDs aim to prevent is yet to systematically taint the outcome of an election. Of course, I don’t like the fact that even an inconsequential number of people impersonated another voter at the polls. Texas’ investigation and a plethora of other investigations (including one by the U.S. Justice Department), however, do not indicate that the tiny number of impersonation constitute a systematic problem with an election. Most fraud, where the outcome of an election is tainted, comes at the tabulating end of our Democracy.
I’m just going on the record saying that I didn’t mean to equate minorities and being poor if that was what was construed. I was commenting on the more general problem these laws cause for those who are poor regardless of whether or not they are also minority. Also good point on how voter fraud needs to happen thousands of times in order to influence an election. A lot of times that point goes missed in these debates. I don’t think anyone can truthfully say that ACORN caused massive voter fraud that influenced the outcome in any of the country’s recent elections.
Your argument that it’s not the financial cost but the cost of valuable time is clearly absurd. Why require people to carry passports or licenses? To say this is the GOPS scheme to hurt voters who typically vote democratic is also false. This ID would be as easy to renew as a license and could be done at the same time. I’m sorry I just can’t sympathize with your argument.
Greatings, thepoliticizer.com to GoogleReader!