There are some political and partisan controversies in which I just cannot comprehend, from an ethical perspective, why there is any serious disagreement. Illegal immigration is one of them. Of course we need to control immigration; of course it is madness to encourage illegal immigrants to enter the country; and of course we have to enforce our laws. The arguments against these obvious and undeniable facts are entirely based on rationalizations, emotion, cynical political strategies and group loyalties. The advocates for illegal immigrants have one valid argument that only applies to those who currently live here: it’s too late and too difficult to get rid of them now. I agree, but that doesn’t mean it is responsible to keep adding to the problem.
Voter identification requirements is another one of those debates. Of course it makes sense to protect the integrity of elections by requiring valid IDs. The last time the Supreme Court visited the issue, an ideologically-mixed court found a voter ID requirement reasonable, necessary and constitutional. Writing for the 6-3 majority in 2008, Justice Stevens (who in retirement has become something of a progressive icon), wrote,
“The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with [the Indiana law.] Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek.”
Of course. Our government is entirely dependent on elections. Nobody questions the reasonableness of requiring IDs to buy liquor, open a bank account, rent a car or check into a hotel, yet we’re going to rely on the honor system for our elections? The idea is madness, though, to be fair, two current members of the Court, Justice Ginsberg and Breyer, argued that avoiding “disparate impact” justified allowing a gaping vulnerability in the integrity of elections to go unaddressed. Breyer wrote:
“Indiana’s statute requires registered voters to present photo identification at the polls. It imposes a burden upon some voters, but it does so in order to prevent fraud, to build confidence in the voting system, and thereby to maintain the integrity of the voting process. In determining whether this statute violates the Federal Constitution, I would balance the voting-related interests that the statute affects, asking “whether the statute burdens any one such interest in a manner out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon the others (perhaps, but not necessarily, because of the existence of a clearly superior, less restrictive alternative)…”
Justice Breyer concluded that the alleged “burden” to some groups outweighed the integrity of the democratic system, thus embodying the current delusion of modern liberalism: race is more important that anything else, especially when that race is a reliable and uncritical source of power for Democrats.
It wasn’t until several political and judicial factors changed that the Ginsberg-Breyer rationale became politically weaponized, among them the increasing employment of the dubious “disparate impact” doctrine, the Democratic party strategists’ realization that painting Republicans as racists was an excellent way to get minorities to the polls; the growing tendency of African Americans to automatically vote a straight Democratic ticket regardless of who the candidates were and what they had accomplished; an aggressively political and partisan Justice Department and, yes, the realization that all those illegal immigrants here who are counting on keeping the borders as porous as possible might somehow find ways to vote, that requiring IDs became controversial.
Do some, even many, Republican legislators and conservative pundits promote state voter ID laws because they believe there would be a disparate impact on Democratic voting blocs? Absolutely; I have no doubts whatsoever. Does responsible and necessary legislation become magically irresponsible and unconstitutional because unethical motives merge with the ethical ones in passing it? Again, of course not. It is a principle of ethical analysis discussed here many times: many actions have both ethical and unethical motives, but the ethical nature of the conduct must be judged on its intended purpose, reasonably anticipated results, and effect on society as a whole. In the case of voter identification, the obvious and reasonable approach is to pass legislation to protect the integrity of the system and then seek to mitigate any inequities by separate means. In an ethical, reasonable system where one party didn’t see itself gaining power by allowing loose enforcement of voting requirements and the other party didn’t similarly see happy side-effect of enforcing them vigorously, this wouldn’t be a partisan issue at all. Of course we should have laws making sure that voters are who they say they are. Of course we should make sure that every citizen has access to such identification.
The current ascendant argument against voter ID laws is articulated by the New York Times in an editorial today titled, The Success of the Voter Fraud Myth. The logic used strikes me is intellectually dishonest. Voter fraud is not a myth; it has been documented in American elections for centuries. Nor is voter fraud a false concern.In August, Alabama convicted one woman of 24 counts of voter fraud. Minnesota Senator Al Franken, who won his seat in a disputed election decided by 312 votes in part because 1,099 felons inelgible felons voted. A survey of voter data in the journal Electoral Studies determined that “more than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote.” While the Times ignores this study (which has been attacked as flawed), it cites other studies showing that “out of one billion votes cast in all American elections between 2000 and 2014, there were 31 possible cases of impersonation fraud.” 31 possible cases of voter fraud? Every time a voter votes without identification it’s a possible case of voter fraud.
Breyer made the case for laws ensuring the integrity of the electoral system when he wrote that one reason to have voter ID laws is “to build confidence in the voting system.” Right now, there is no such confidence….not after the 2000 election was determined by disputed ballots, unreliable machines, and vote count that was within an unavoidable margin of error. The Times states: “Last week, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that nearly half of registered American voters believe that voter fraud occurs “somewhat” or “very” often. “
That alone is a compelling reason to mandate voter ID.
Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote in U.S. News & World Report in 2012 that voter fraud didn’t exist:
“Voter fraud would be a real problem if it actually happened. It’s a serious crime, and one that can undermine our democracy. Fortunately, it’s a crime we have largely figured out how to prevent.”
Wait: how has it been “prevented?” Allowing close to 12 million illegal immigrants who have a vested interest in electing officials who will keep the enforcement of immigration laws lax must be a preventive measure, I guess. A member of a Virginia county elections board reported that he had found nearly 300 non-citizens registered to vote in that county, and that about half of them had actually illegally voted. When, he says, he took the information to the Justice Department, “they had no interest in it.”
My assumption is that there is not more evidence of voter fraud only because the partisan and racialized Obama Justice Department and other authorities in thrall to the Democrats don’t want to find such evidence. Let us, however, assume that the Times is correct, though I find that extremely hard to swallow. So far, elections aren’t being affected by voter fraud despite the fact that it is remarkable easy to do, and there is great motivation to do it as well as a national party that stands to benefit. Let’s stipulate to that (for now).
So what? On September 10, 2001, the New York Times could have written about the myth of hijacking and the need for airport security. Before the Oklahoma City bombing, I could walk into any federal building without being screened or patted down. When the housing boom was underway, some analysts predicted that the high-risk loans posed a serious danger to the economy, and that prophylactic regulations should be instituted. The rebuttal: “Ha! There has never been a housing collapse in this country!”
Have you taken a train lately? Isn’t it amazing how little security there is? Just wait until the first terrorist attack on Amtrak, though. Things will change fast. Things will change fast, and everyone will say, ” Why didn’t we take measures to prevent this earlier?”
There is no law, rule or principle that credibly argues that evident opportunities for wrongdoing and disaster shouldn’t be addressed until after the disaster occurs. Yet that is exactly what the Times and others who want to continue daring voter frauds to steal elections are arguing: “Don’t lock the barn door until the horse has already escaped.”
That seems to me to be obviously irresponsible and foolish…unless the real intent is to let the horse escape.
Ethics Alarms 
Great post. What ever happened to common sense?
What ever happened to what? Common WHAT?
Hah.
An Indiana Driver’s License or State ID is sufficient ID to vote in Indiana. Both show that you are a resident of Indiana but neither indicates your citizenship. A green card is sufficient ID to get either. Registration to vote requires no ID but requires that you swear that you are in fact a citizen. There is little or no effort to verify voter registration. So, as an attempt to keep voters honest rather than suppress honest voters the law is pretty much a fraud. As far as election fraud I think Boss Tweed was right when he said; “who votes means nothing, who counts means everything.”
Which was also the lesson of Florida 2000.
Isn’t that the election that only required five votes to win?
I saw a picture of John Wayne on the internet. The caption was “If I were alive, I’d vote for Trump. But since I’m dead, I guess I’m voting for Clinton.”
Beauty, eh?
I wonder about that. It’s possible that the Duke would have voted for Trump over Hillary, but he was an educated and thoughtful man as well as a conservative. Of course, at 109 years old, his judgment might be a bit blurred, so who knows.
Talk about easy to do!! Now in California you are automatically registered to vote when you get your driver’s license or an I.d card that you can use to show at the grocery store to write checks. No wonder that now California is the bluest of the blue states!! http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/11/california-opens-to-the-door-to-more-voter-fraud-with-new-motor-voter-law/
Oh, really? Do all those other states that register new drivers as voters also open the way to fraud?
I’ve worked many years as an election judge. The possibility of casting a fraudulent vote is more complex than most people know. The system has safeguards, including the assignment of poll workers to their home precincts, meaning that it’s hard to pretend you’re somebody else when you’re talking to his neighbor,,
How many states give licenses to illegal aliens? (Which is as wrong as it is stupid, by the way.)
Wait. People in the U.S. know their neighbors? Poll workers aren’t ever paid party loyalists?
I have never seen anyone I know at our polling place, which is about a hundred yards from our home. All I’ve ever had to do is give my name and address correctly: nobody asks for my ID. Now: how is that system protection? Fact: anyone who can learn my name and address can come and vote pretending to be me. All they need to never be found out is to be sure I’m NOT voting. The argument that fraudulent voting is a problem that has been solved is a self-evident falsehood, and nobody who says that should be trusted.
I wonder if those who decry voter ID also decry universal background checks on firearm purchases for the same reason.
Can’t speak to other locales, but down here it’s not outside the realm of possibility for a voting precinct to have multiple thousands of voters…very doubtful if the poll-workers know everybody in their precinct.
How many of these laws require an ID to request or submit an absentee ballot? What are the chances of vote stealing/vote selling there?
How can you rate as an ethical good, laws crafted to target specific communities, and incidentally laws that create a form of poll tax with the cost of the documentation, when they fail to plug a politically inconvient obvious hole?
What about laws that allow gun licenses but not student IDs from state schools? Why do the bad motivation and disproportional effect not matter in your accounting? Sure you mentioned them, and then dismissed them.
Why should anyone staying within the country *need* an ID? I’m not in the habit of carrying one, cops can’t force me to hand over that which I don’t have on my person. What does this mean for people who’s chosen hair and makeup styles don’t match socially acceptable notions of gender? Can poll workers deny trans people who grow out their hair and put on some makeup because they’re not wearing such in their photo? Can they decide an ID is an obvious fake if the sex doesn’t match the presentation?
How many legitimate voters can you disenfranchise in pursuit of a hypothetical fraudulent voter before the enterprise becomes unethical Jack?
So then universal background checks for firearm purchases are unethical?
How many of these laws require an ID to request or submit an absentee ballot? What are the chances of vote stealing/vote selling there?
1) I don’t know.
2) Lots. Absentee ballots have already been used for vote fraud. Point?
How can you rate as an ethical good, laws crafted to target specific communities, and incidentally laws that create a form of poll tax with the cost of the documentation, when they fail to plug a politically inconvenient obvious hole?
The constitutional ID laws provide state identification free or at a nominal charge.
What about laws that allow gun licenses but not student IDs from state schools? Why do the bad motivation and disproportional effect not matter in your accounting? Sure you mentioned them, and then dismissed them.
This isn’t a policy blog. The post is about requiring IDs to vote. Since student IDs can be counterfieted with ease, I assume that’s why they are not approved ID. Gun licenses are legitimate IDs. Why wouldn’t they be?
Why should anyone staying within the country *need* an ID?
WHAT? You mean, why should you have to be a citizen to vote? The topic is voting.
Can poll workers deny trans people who grow out their hair and put on some makeup because they’re not wearing such in their photo?
If you don’t look like your ID, it’s your responsibility to update the photo. Same goes for outdated head shots.
Can they decide an ID is an obvious fake if the sex doesn’t match the presentation?
You like the fallacy of pointing to minor components of a large issue to avoid the whole. The issue is making sure people are who they say they are when they vote. All of the problems you mention can occur at a traffic stop or an airport security check. Yes, they are problems. No, the existence of problems with necessary measures to not render them unnecessary or unethical.
How many legitimate voters can you disenfranchise in pursuit of a hypothetical fraudulent voter before the enterprise becomes unethical Jack?
I would also point out that ANY gun permit requires a birth certificate…all a student I.D. requires is a warm body attached to it.
It has been a long time but my student ID in college required my state ID
Been even longer for me, and all that was required was the print-out of the classes I was taking.
“You like the fallacy of pointing to minor components of a large issue to avoid the whole.”
Because those are the only arguments available to the people who hate the idea of securing the voting process from fraud.
Like you stated. This issue really ought be common sense.
And IDs for absentee votes? If that’s only common sense, I expect you’ve been pushing that pretty hard, yes?
This should sum things up
The laws requiring ID to vote in person but not absentee are on their face unethical. They are passed in bad faith. They do not fix a problem or a potential problem, instead they target the poor while making sure members of preferred demographics have an easier time while at the same time ignoring a known easily exploitable method of voter fraud. How can you defend it?
You think maybe it’ll prevent a problem you think there’d be proof of if there wasn’t some conspiracy that you think there is to hide it?
Consequentialism. Bad faith plus disparate impact are not erased by maybe if you squint resulting in something you think is good.
Nominal charge is unacceptable, as is any charge for the documents needed to get the ID. No charge to vote, not a penny. Even means testing for cost is unacceptable. Incidentally, the last few times I voted, when I gave my name, my picture appeared on a computer screen, and they checked my signature against the one on file. No ID card needed.
Why not require the same type of ID instead of privileging ones that only some people will have, some people incidentally who tend to vote a specific way. Or better yet, don’t require ID at all. Heinlein said any place that started requiring ID was in decline past the point of no return.
You like thinking that whatever works for you shouldn’t be a problem for anyone else. Not everyone’s an affluent straight white dude. They have problems you don’t, they face difficulties you don’t and you’re handwaveing it away. Now it’s up to trans people–and gods I can’t believe I’m defending them but my position has always been mand and woman are social classes not feelings, and feelings don’t entitle you to swing a penis around in the women’s showers not that there’s anything wrong with changing you clothes or hair or body or name or whatever to ease dysphoria–and you want them to just make sure to take the time and money to face down bureaucracies, demand new photos, present new documents, face down DMV employees who may not be very helpful, and whatever else it takes to change a picture or a name these days just to vote? Or perhaps they should go back to looking like they way they used to and endure crippling dysphoria just to vote?
Are we supposed to just toss aside the edge cases because they get in the way of crafting the law you want?
“Not everyone’s an affluent straight white dude.”
Is that really the summation of your rebuttal?
If so, you are patently dumb.
Man, we must all be well above the poverty line if ability to get an ID makes one affluent…
I do wonder what the Euler diagram looks like of “Set of people who interact so little with society that they have never gotten a State issued ID card” and “Set of people who couldn’t be bothered to vote even if asked nicely”
Do you think the ACA (Obamacare) was a phenomenally great idea?
Something tells me you at least lean that direction.
You complain about the possibility of a civic privilege that may cost a citizen something like 20-40 bucks. But I bet you are just head-over-heels for the policy that compels citizens to pay THOUSANDS.
Do I have my suspicions correct?
You haven’t read the 24’th amendment have you? You cannot make people pay to vote. If you require ID to vote and then charge for the ID… even you should be able to make the connection.
You probably weren’t paying any attention at all when Jack clearly identified to you that constitutional Voter ID laws have a system to provide free IDs as needed.
It’s up above if you’d like to re-read.
You weren’t paying any attention. As needed is not sufficient. If you charge even one person a single penny for the ID or the documents to get the ID you are charging people to vote, that they can afford it doesn’t matter.
Go and read Thoreau
I’ll check, but I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. If the state required only one ID to vote and charged for it (by the way, I doubt that one penny would be found to be a poll tax)), then the fee could be interpreted as a state bar to voting. But a law that allows many kinds of secure IDs (you have to pay fees for driver’s licenses) that have other uses AND offers a state version at a nominal fee would not constitute a poll tax. It wouldn’t be a tax at all. I’m sure there would be a 24th Amendment challenge, so charging a penny would be stupid, but I’m still dubious that it meets the definition of poll tax..
Current activists who want to make sure they can inflate the vote with blindly one-party voters argue that anything short of a limousine (paid) ride to the polls while in one’s pajamas any day of the year, with a right to cut in line and registrations handed out at 7-11s is vote suppression.
I’ve always been opposed to the use of driver’s licenses as anything other than a license to drive. I understand the reasoning behind its use as ID. they already need to know the person driving is the person with the licence so why not make the thing useful for other things? And why not charge for the administrative overhead especially when it isn’t everyone using the service?
Practicalities aren’t always wise.
If you insist on an ID card to vote… which of course I oppose, you’ll find insisting on an ID for anything I might want to do is something I find objectionable, I grumble over my passport and it’s the least offensive government ID I have and the one I use most often since it’s the least detailed–no address, yay! If you insist on ID to vote then the voter ID must be available free of charge and free of charge for supporting documentation. That’s the only way to avoid the 24’th amendment. The argument against the poll tax was never that it was specifically a tax, taxation is just the form that it took, it was the money (and some of where it was going.) Charging a penny would be merely symbolic–and yet–symbols mater or no one would care about kneeling during the national anthem.
We have a problem Jack. We both want to prevent a wrong. To you, culturally and philosophically, the chance of a fraudulent voter is deeply offensive, taking steps only makes sense. To me a suppressed vote is a far greater offense than a potential diluted vote. Rather than a voice who doesn’t belong being added to the chorus, a voice is silenced. And I’m not a repulican. A marginalized voice being silenced is worse because they’re being denied the chance to change things for their betterment.
A barrier so low you can step over it without thinking can be an imposing wall to people without your advantages. A minor point to you can be an affront to the liberty of another and you of all people should understand that because of the gun debate. I don’t have a gun, if they rounded up guns from the people who love them most it wouldn’t hurt me, it wouldn’t change my life except I might be a little bit safer since I have much grater fear of a George Zimmerman type than a mugger. Other people would scream.
Other people can feel just as strongly about their other freedoms as gun people feel about theirs. Other people can be just as angry at having those freedoms given away by people who don’t care about them. In every airport line you find someone who doesn’t like the security show and the indignities that go with it and you’ll find twenty more who say oh if it makes us safe. That’s you on this issue Jack, if it stops a fraudulent vote…
I don’t care for the proliferation of ID requirements, I don’t care for the extra burdens no matter how small–I have ID. I don’t care for the impositions on the people who whom this is a larger burden. I don’t care for the bad faith behind the new laws. I don’t care for the ID of anyone having to pay even the smallest fee to vote–and i don’t think the 24’th amendment does either. I don’t care for the majority bargaining away what matters to other people just because they can, because it won’t bother them.
Of course any system that deals will large numbers of people will end up with some people having a greater burden than others. Even with a polling place on every corner someone will have a longer walk. Someone will always think it is unfair. But how unfair, and how much burden matters. With voting it matters as much as speech, those are the two ways within the system to change it. Beyond that you have to resort to things like jury nullification which is controversial and only open to those selected. And then to force, which en mass indicates that the system has failed.
The threat you perceive is so much less than the one I worry about. Either a way is found to deal with both in a way that suppression is a non-issue or you choose the least-bad path. You know what I consider least-bad.
You defaulted to the slippery slope rationalization. The franchise is important, and maximizing its integrity is of existential importance. “Next thing you know, they’ll make us show ID to use the bathroom” is avoiding a rational argument, not participating in one.
The balancing was different before we had 12 million illegal aliens demanding the rights of citizens and a news media and an entire political party enabling their theft of American privileges and benefits.
Next thing you know, they’ll make us show ID to use the bathroom” is avoiding a rational argument, not participating in one.
Sure, but then, so is this:
Current activists who want to make sure they can inflate the vote with blindly one-party voters argue that anything short of a limousine (paid) ride to the polls while in one’s pajamas any day of the year, with a right to cut in line and registrations handed out at 7-11s is vote suppression.
BZzzzt!
Wrong
That’s “hyperbole”. Brush up on your rhetoric.
Of course. But that was obvious, and intentional hyperbole, a.k.a. satire.
Way to avoid pretty much every other substantive comment.
You’re about like Chris vs Humble Talent discussing econcomics in the other thread.
You are behaving like a child. I made my points, you replied on one of them and you used a personal insult to do it, a laughable one at that, I already know I’m dumb. I replied to you on your chosen sub-topic. Nothing was avoided.
Your one “point” I replied to was quite the summation of just about *all* your points, so, replying to it is a reply to them all. Nice try weaseling out though. And I didn’t insult you. I made a fairly logical if-then interrogative. I stand by he notion that anyone who believes you have to be an affluent straight white guy to get a state ID viable for voting purposes is probably a very very stupid person.
Now I haven’t actually shown you to be one. I have you the option to amend the statement. Hence the question…
A longer reply to your recent ramble above is forthcoming.
Does your rationale apply to universal background checks for firearm purchases?
I wonder if Justice Breyer is willing to apply that same rationale to universal background checks on firearm purchases.
If the government wants to put a restriction on a right, then the government should be able to prove the restriction is necessary.
That has not been done with voter ID laws.
I don’t think disparate impact by itself is enough to rule a law invalid. But disparae impact + lack of a real need + bad motives = ethics alarms going off all over the place. Have you devoted an article to condemning the Republicans who are doing this to suppress the black vote, Jack? It would seem to me that they are far more unethical than most of those fighting these laws.
Neither has this been done with universal background checks for firearm purchases.
By the way, is the purpose of universal background checks for firearm purchases to suppress lawful gun ownership by blacks.
Neither has this been done with universal background checks for firearm purchases.
Sure it has. The ATF has found that the gun show loophole is abused by gangs, terrorists, and other criminals. One of the guns used in the Columbine shootings was only bought for the boys because their friend didn’t have to do a background check.
If there was a voter ID comparison to Columbine, maybe you’d have a point.
By the way, is the purpose of universal background checks for firearm purchases to suppress lawful gun ownership by blacks.
No. What evidence do you have that it is?
People claim that requiring photo ID to vote is racist because black people are somehow less likely to have a photo ID than white people.
Here is an article about New York city’s gun laws.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/371256/voter-id-and-gun-rights-charles-c-w-cooke
Maybe we should adopt similar laws regarding voting.
You’ve left out one problem: While the state can mandate voter requirements, it cannot regulate the operating practices of the local boards of elections. What if those boards are open only 4 days a week, from 12 to 3, say? I think the readers of this blog should find out the procedures in their home districts; betcha you’ll find some surprises. If a state wants to make an ID requirement for all voters, it should move heaven and hell to ensure that anyone who needs an ID will have one. THAT would make it fair.
Agreed.