Great article Milan. This plus thoughtful moderation on trans issues (probably just restrictions on sports participation) and immigration (close asylum loophole) would do a ton of repair to the damaged Democratic brand.
"There’s a traditional story where Republicans seek to make it harder to vote so that the electorate skews to the highly educated. But that dynamic is odd in a world where Democrats have become the party of the highly educated."
This assumes a "symmetrically" implemented voter ID policy with a disincentive effect that affects Dem and GOP voters equally, which feels like a massive and unwarranted leap of faith given the current stae of the GOP.
I don’t really understand what the paperwork issue is that so many people are without Id and we’ve been having this fight for a long time and I’m unclear why we can’t get all poor people identification. It doesn’t seem like this should be unsolvable but I never even hear plans to fix it.
Right, I agree. To the extent that the issue is that we don't have a standard national ID card that says "citizen" or "lawful permanent resident" on it, that seems like an easy fix.
Bureaucratic friction has a long history in the USA as a suppressor of full civic participation by those who can least afford the time and money to go through the hoops. Not only for voting but for every interaction of the citizen and the state. A national ID as you propose and many other countries have would reduce friction. When it has been proposed in the US (not recently) it was shouted down from the right as the first step towards a police state. Not surprising in friction is the mail goal.
This article did sway my thoughts to thinking that *some* sort of voter ID requirement could be okay but it would really depend on the details. I'd be interested to hear more about that.
I would not object to some sort of voter ID implementation as part of a deal that also got something for Democrats.
But I think the idea that a voter ID law would restore trust in elections is mostly wishful thinking. "Give Republicans some of what they want and they will back off" is just disastrous, beause it relies on expecting the Republican Party to behave in good faith?
I think this article undersells the downside risk of a bad voter ID bill, which I’m scared could make trust in the electoral process much worse. If a significant number of people who expected and intended to vote are unable to vote because of bureaucratic nonsense like not having a passport (seriously?! Even rich people who don’t travel internationally let their passports expire! I’ve seen it! I’ve come close to doing it! And the name change by marriage thing sounds even worse!) that seems utterly poisonous to the legitimacy of our democracy. Like, sure, just write a good bill instead. But it had really better be good.
I think voter ID is great But becomes a problem when the burden of acquiring a voter ID lands heavily on certain voters. I would like to see a voter ID bill that commits the government to spending all the time and money necessary to ensure that any citizen who wants a voter ID can get one with no cost in money and negligible cost in time. Certainly there should be no processing fee associated with getting one and I would go farther and say that the costs of acquiring necessary documentation such as birth certificates should be covered by the government as well. Also, if in person visits are required as part of the ID process, the office where they happen should be open 16 hours a day to accommodate the schedules of anyone who needs to visit. And nobody should have to travel more than 10 miles to reach such an in-person location.
“In 2015, Texas enacted a voter ID law that allowed concealed-carry permits as proof of citizenship but not student ID cards — making the intent to engage in differential vote suppression about as clear as it gets.”
Texas required that you provide proof you were a citizen or legal permanent resident to get a concealed carry permit. (Past tense because a permit is no longer required to concealed carry in Texas if you meet a few criteria.). It also required other background checks.
Student ids do not require that you be a citizen or legal permanent resident.
That does not sound like evidence that it was intended for voter suppression. Voter suppression may have been intended by the overall law, but allowing concealed carry permits as id, while not allowing student ids, isn’t evidence of it.
I am guessing you don’t have friends who have gotten concealed carry permits.
Then you have to know that getting one requires a background check, providing fingerprints, providing documents to prove your identity, in Texas it required proof of citizenship or permanent residency, and it has a waiting period so things can be checked.
Getting a student id requires tuition and a pulse. Being a student does not require proving ”legal presence” or a background check or fingerprints.
Again, I’m not claiming good intent for the id law, but a concealed carry permit is objectively much better proof of identity for the stated purpose than a student id. A student id does not meet the claimed (note word choice) goal of the law.
Doesn't this argument presuppose a world in which Republicans are actually interested in election security instead of just trying to win? It's possible to imagine a world where Republicans get voter ID and Democrats compromise by getting freely issued national or state ID's, but that isn't the world we live in.
Here's why I've never found the case for voter ID to be all that compelling.
I have lived in Massachusetts - a state that does not require voter ID - for most of my adult life. I spent about 10 years as an adult in other states (Missouri and California) from abot 1994 to 2004, and cannot remember what the voter ID regime was in those states at that time.
I vote in every election. In MA, that mans showing up to your polling location, giving your name, getting checked off on the voter roll, being given a ballot, casting the ballot, and leaving. Not a single time in over 20 years of every-election voting have I walked in, given my name, and been denied a ballot because the poll worker claimed I had already voted. Not one single time of voting in every primary, general, local, and special election.
So I've served as a poll worker in MA in 2020 and 2021. What would be nice about a voter ID law is that it would make my job slightly easier. When a voter gives their name and address, sometimes you don't hear them right the first time, or you have to ask them about spelling. Making showing ID mandatory would've made my job marginally easier by saving me 5-10 seconds per voter, which adds up over a 10 to 12-hour day.
The other problem we're trying to fix, as I wrote in the piece, is trust in the process. You trust the election process. But a lot of people don't! They think it's strange that we don't require showing an ID that proves citizenship at the polls, because it seems so obvious that we should do it just to be safe.
I'm skeptical of your time savings if you still need to check the ID and physically cross a voter off the rolls as is current practice. If IDs could be scanned and the process could be automated I could see it going faster. But I;ve never been a poll worker.
But I am even more skeptical that voter ID would restore trust in the process. I wouldn't oppose a reasonable ID law, but I think the concerns about elections are wholly the product of fearmongering, the belief on the right that some people should not be allowed to vote regardless of status, and the belief on the right that any time they lose an election,it must have been fraud.
Right now they have moved beyond ID to pushing for on the spot proof-of-citizendhip (not just proof-of-citizenship to get on the rolls), so they would probably oppose a reasonable voter ID bill as an inadequate measure that allowed migrants t vote.
Weird but true: when I show up to vote and hand my drivers license so they can get my name and address right, the poll workers seem shocked and offended, and they make me put it back in my pocket.
What state, if you don't mind me asking? I am an election moderator in CT and you're required to provide something with two of the following three identifiers on the same document: name, address, signature. Can be anything from social security card to electric bill to bank statement but good old fashioned photo ID is by far most common.
as you note, there was a big obama era push to raise the salience of voter suppression because republicans were trying to gut the VRA. the NBER study you cite is convincing, but is it not possible that the effect wasn't seen specifically because so much attention was being paid to it? not to mention, there is now a threat of ICE being at the polls.
One can imagine a world in which Democrats stake out a more popular rhetorical ground on voting rights. What is impossible to imagine is passing actual bipartisan legislation. Which Washington Republican plays the role of Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams in this parable? If Republicans wanted to increase confidence in our elections, the first thing they should do is stop undermining it with lies. If they don't do this, doesn't that suggest that isn't actually their goal.
Great article Milan. This plus thoughtful moderation on trans issues (probably just restrictions on sports participation) and immigration (close asylum loophole) would do a ton of repair to the damaged Democratic brand.
"There’s a traditional story where Republicans seek to make it harder to vote so that the electorate skews to the highly educated. But that dynamic is odd in a world where Democrats have become the party of the highly educated."
This assumes a "symmetrically" implemented voter ID policy with a disincentive effect that affects Dem and GOP voters equally, which feels like a massive and unwarranted leap of faith given the current stae of the GOP.
What I am saying is that *as written* the SAVE America Act would probably net votes for Democrats. "People who own a passport" are a cohort that (probably) voted for Harris. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/35414-only-one-third-americans-have-valid-us-passport
Might be true "as written," but what matters is "in practice."
I don’t really understand what the paperwork issue is that so many people are without Id and we’ve been having this fight for a long time and I’m unclear why we can’t get all poor people identification. It doesn’t seem like this should be unsolvable but I never even hear plans to fix it.
Right, I agree. To the extent that the issue is that we don't have a standard national ID card that says "citizen" or "lawful permanent resident" on it, that seems like an easy fix.
Bureaucratic friction has a long history in the USA as a suppressor of full civic participation by those who can least afford the time and money to go through the hoops. Not only for voting but for every interaction of the citizen and the state. A national ID as you propose and many other countries have would reduce friction. When it has been proposed in the US (not recently) it was shouted down from the right as the first step towards a police state. Not surprising in friction is the mail goal.
This article did sway my thoughts to thinking that *some* sort of voter ID requirement could be okay but it would really depend on the details. I'd be interested to hear more about that.
I would not object to some sort of voter ID implementation as part of a deal that also got something for Democrats.
But I think the idea that a voter ID law would restore trust in elections is mostly wishful thinking. "Give Republicans some of what they want and they will back off" is just disastrous, beause it relies on expecting the Republican Party to behave in good faith?
I think this article undersells the downside risk of a bad voter ID bill, which I’m scared could make trust in the electoral process much worse. If a significant number of people who expected and intended to vote are unable to vote because of bureaucratic nonsense like not having a passport (seriously?! Even rich people who don’t travel internationally let their passports expire! I’ve seen it! I’ve come close to doing it! And the name change by marriage thing sounds even worse!) that seems utterly poisonous to the legitimacy of our democracy. Like, sure, just write a good bill instead. But it had really better be good.
I think voter ID is great But becomes a problem when the burden of acquiring a voter ID lands heavily on certain voters. I would like to see a voter ID bill that commits the government to spending all the time and money necessary to ensure that any citizen who wants a voter ID can get one with no cost in money and negligible cost in time. Certainly there should be no processing fee associated with getting one and I would go farther and say that the costs of acquiring necessary documentation such as birth certificates should be covered by the government as well. Also, if in person visits are required as part of the ID process, the office where they happen should be open 16 hours a day to accommodate the schedules of anyone who needs to visit. And nobody should have to travel more than 10 miles to reach such an in-person location.
“In 2015, Texas enacted a voter ID law that allowed concealed-carry permits as proof of citizenship but not student ID cards — making the intent to engage in differential vote suppression about as clear as it gets.”
Texas required that you provide proof you were a citizen or legal permanent resident to get a concealed carry permit. (Past tense because a permit is no longer required to concealed carry in Texas if you meet a few criteria.). It also required other background checks.
Student ids do not require that you be a citizen or legal permanent resident.
That does not sound like evidence that it was intended for voter suppression. Voter suppression may have been intended by the overall law, but allowing concealed carry permits as id, while not allowing student ids, isn’t evidence of it.
I am guessing you don’t have friends who have gotten concealed carry permits.
You’re guessing wrong. My best friend since the 5th grade has one.
Then you have to know that getting one requires a background check, providing fingerprints, providing documents to prove your identity, in Texas it required proof of citizenship or permanent residency, and it has a waiting period so things can be checked.
Getting a student id requires tuition and a pulse. Being a student does not require proving ”legal presence” or a background check or fingerprints.
Again, I’m not claiming good intent for the id law, but a concealed carry permit is objectively much better proof of identity for the stated purpose than a student id. A student id does not meet the claimed (note word choice) goal of the law.
Doesn't this argument presuppose a world in which Republicans are actually interested in election security instead of just trying to win? It's possible to imagine a world where Republicans get voter ID and Democrats compromise by getting freely issued national or state ID's, but that isn't the world we live in.
Here's why I've never found the case for voter ID to be all that compelling.
I have lived in Massachusetts - a state that does not require voter ID - for most of my adult life. I spent about 10 years as an adult in other states (Missouri and California) from abot 1994 to 2004, and cannot remember what the voter ID regime was in those states at that time.
I vote in every election. In MA, that mans showing up to your polling location, giving your name, getting checked off on the voter roll, being given a ballot, casting the ballot, and leaving. Not a single time in over 20 years of every-election voting have I walked in, given my name, and been denied a ballot because the poll worker claimed I had already voted. Not one single time of voting in every primary, general, local, and special election.
So what problem are we trying to fix?
So I've served as a poll worker in MA in 2020 and 2021. What would be nice about a voter ID law is that it would make my job slightly easier. When a voter gives their name and address, sometimes you don't hear them right the first time, or you have to ask them about spelling. Making showing ID mandatory would've made my job marginally easier by saving me 5-10 seconds per voter, which adds up over a 10 to 12-hour day.
The other problem we're trying to fix, as I wrote in the piece, is trust in the process. You trust the election process. But a lot of people don't! They think it's strange that we don't require showing an ID that proves citizenship at the polls, because it seems so obvious that we should do it just to be safe.
I'm skeptical of your time savings if you still need to check the ID and physically cross a voter off the rolls as is current practice. If IDs could be scanned and the process could be automated I could see it going faster. But I;ve never been a poll worker.
But I am even more skeptical that voter ID would restore trust in the process. I wouldn't oppose a reasonable ID law, but I think the concerns about elections are wholly the product of fearmongering, the belief on the right that some people should not be allowed to vote regardless of status, and the belief on the right that any time they lose an election,it must have been fraud.
Right now they have moved beyond ID to pushing for on the spot proof-of-citizendhip (not just proof-of-citizenship to get on the rolls), so they would probably oppose a reasonable voter ID bill as an inadequate measure that allowed migrants t vote.
Weird but true: when I show up to vote and hand my drivers license so they can get my name and address right, the poll workers seem shocked and offended, and they make me put it back in my pocket.
What state, if you don't mind me asking? I am an election moderator in CT and you're required to provide something with two of the following three identifiers on the same document: name, address, signature. Can be anything from social security card to electric bill to bank statement but good old fashioned photo ID is by far most common.
New York.
For us they want you to state your name and address, then they find your record and you sign to match your signature.
Woof. Signature matching is such a busted way to do things.
as you note, there was a big obama era push to raise the salience of voter suppression because republicans were trying to gut the VRA. the NBER study you cite is convincing, but is it not possible that the effect wasn't seen specifically because so much attention was being paid to it? not to mention, there is now a threat of ICE being at the polls.
One can imagine a world in which Democrats stake out a more popular rhetorical ground on voting rights. What is impossible to imagine is passing actual bipartisan legislation. Which Washington Republican plays the role of Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams in this parable? If Republicans wanted to increase confidence in our elections, the first thing they should do is stop undermining it with lies. If they don't do this, doesn't that suggest that isn't actually their goal.
Thank you for this. Perfect.