Caleb Baucum asked: “[W]hat is your opinion of requiring a photo ID in order to vote? While the rhetoric is that it harms poor voters without IDs, do you know of any research that can back up this claim? Given that an ID is needed to drive, open a bank account, get a library card, etc, it would seem only a very small number of people do not have IDs. Of those, how many actually vote?"
My position on this is that voting should be easy for everyone eligible.
From that point of view, the question isn’t so much whether the photo ID is a good idea in some abstract sense, but whether anything that makes voting harder is justified by some other, overwhelming, factor. And given that there is basically zero evidence that imposter fraud is a significant problem, that makes voter ID an easy call: I’m strongly against it.
Now, it’s also true, as I read the evidence, that Democratic claims that voter ID is a major disenfranchisement are mostly hype. But if your standard is that voting should be easy for everyone, then it’s still an easy call.
If it were up to me, I’d do a lot more to increase voter participation. I’d at least want same-day registration, but preferably would have an automatic, permanent voter registration system. I’d push states to consolidate election days and to reduce the number of things citizens must vote on (start with judges, and work from there). I’d get rid of nonpartisan elections and reduce or eliminate ballot measures. And I’d lower the voting age, hoping that getting high school or even middle school kids into the habit of voting would carry over into their adult years. I'm more ambivalent about some other initiatives such as vote-by-mail, early voting, weekend voting or an Election Day holiday, but mainly because the evidence is mixed about whether they increase voting or make it easier.
To contact the writer of this article: Jbernstein62@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this article: Francis Wilkinson at firstname.lastname@example.org.