United Liberty
Should a libertarian support voter ID laws?
Wed, 03/14/2012 - 12:05pm | posted by Brian Lehman
Since 2003 a number of states have passed laws requiring some sort of ID to be shown when a person goes to vote. Proponents of the laws present them as a way to stamp out voter fraud; opponents decry the laws as a way to prevent minorities or the poor from voting, as they are most likely to not have acceptable ID. The battles have waged not only in legislatures but in courthouses as well. Wisconsin’s law was just struck down by a judge and Texas’ law is being challenged by the DOJ.
For a libertarian, it seems like both sides of the argument have been a little disingenuous. Voter fraud has yet to be shown to be anywhere near as widespread as Republicans would like us to think, though this could be because it has heretofore gone undetected. And showing a form of basic ID, often provided at no cost to the voter, is a very low bar and one that is gladly accepted when doing numerous other activities - even buying alcohol or getting into a bar.
So we are left to sit outside and try to figure out which side to take. On one hand, for those libertarians who believe in voting, the integrity of elections is very important. We need to ensure that elections accurately represent the will of voters. On the other hand, though, it is important that no one is prevented from voting for illegitimate reasons. If the laws are an underhanded attempt to disenfranchise certain groups, as opponents say, they are problematic.
To me, this whole debate comes down to a very simple factor - the cost of implementation. I mean this in both the human and fiscal sense. The human cost - that is, the cost in loss of convenience and determent from voting - seems minimal. As stated above, we need ID to do many other things, and in most states Voter ID laws provide for some sort of ID at no cost to the voter. It is simply hard for me to buy that ID is an undue burden, when we consider its relative importance and infrequency.
The fiscal sense, though, is more murky. This is especially so because the extent of fraud is an unknown entity. We simply don’t have a great handle on how big the problem is. We could be, in effect, taking the proverbial hammer to a problem that simply does not warrant it. What is clear, though, is that the laws would cost the states money. In my state of Pennsylvania, cost estimates range from $4-11 million dollars. As anyone familiar with Harrisburg’s problems knows, we don’t have that money just sitting around.
So consider this particular libertarian decidedly undecided. It is a core function of government to ensure elections have integrity; but, it is also a core function to spend the taxpayer dollar wisely. Voter ID laws have to meet a high burden of proof here that the cost is worthwhile. Until that happens, I can’t jump fully on board with this movement.
Here’s my thing: In New York, and I imagine in other states, in order to apply for welfare a person has to have ID. If the applicant doesn’t have one, they get issued one (an EBT card with a photo on it) after DSS confirms their identity.
So, where exactly are these poor people with no ID who are registered to vote?
If the issue is that voter ID laws only recognize one specific form, like a driver’s license, then there’s an easy fix: Accept any government-issued ID.
That’s why the argument exists these laws are being put in place to be a hindrance to voting. They specifically won’t take that form of identification.
So, makes you wonder why.
One of the problems with likening Voter ID to identification for buying alcohol is that you don’t have a constitutional right to buy alcohol. Participation in voting is a right, though, constitutionally protected from various angles, one of the most pertinent here being the 24th Amendment which protects against poll taxes (and which was extended to state elections in Harper v. Virginia State BoE). If a law effectively makes people pay to vote, whether or not they are minorities, then the law ought to be deemed unconstitutional. Many states will provide required documents for obtaining ID for free, and good for them - others like Texas have refused to do so, and that is likely to be one of the reasons the law gets struck down.
I think personally too that the inability of people in difficult financial situations to put forth ≥22 dollars (Texas example) to vote is written off too easily, but I’ll let my above argument stand on its own.
Although, I agree with the poll tax argument and how it’s different from the purchase of alcohol. It’s in the actual MN Voter ID amendment that it will “require the state to provide free identification to eligible voters.” And furthermore, it does not require a current address on the voter’s ID. Someone who’s recently moved and doesn’t have a current address on their photo ID will still be able to vote, proving their residence under the current statutes (ex. utility bill.)
I was against the MN Voter ID amendment when I first heard about it being on the ballot this fall, but the more I look into it, I cannot find a libertarian / constitutional argument that fully justifies why it’s “bad.”
But yet, the issues at hand and up for discussion are very muddled. Vouching for someone that they live at certain address and are who they say they are will no longer be valid to register, isn’t that biggest change with the Voter ID law?
In MN, I believe from what I have learned thus far is that too many addresses registered on the day of voting come back as the wrong address or the address doesn’t even exist. Are people showing fake utility bills when they present an ID with an old address to register? Because Voter ID wouldn’t solve that problem. Or are people lying when they vouch for others? And there are several claims in Minneapolis that illegal vouching is a huge problem.
But I don’t know how to feel about vouching for someone. If we say everyone must show and ID and, if needed in addition, proof of current residence, is it wrong to deny someone the option of being vouched for by a fellow registered and eligible voter in their precinct? That is what comes down to in my opinion. And I don’t have the answer yet, would love others’ thoughts on this!
Post new comment