Refuting Arguments Against Voter ID

LB 239, the Voter ID bill, comes up for debate this week on the floor of the Nebraska State Legislature. I wanted to take the time to refute some of the arguments that opponents are still continuously recycling.

Opponents of this bill are saying there’s no proof of voter fraud in Nebraska. This point is easily countered because we’ve never checked for voter fraud. We actually do have quite a bit of evidence of voter fraud in our state’s history. There were massive amounts of petition fraud in the early 1900s, and even situations where ballot boxes were being tossed in the Missouri River to keep votes from being counted. The situation was so severe, that it led to voter registration being implemented in Omaha and Douglas County in 1916.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in writing the majority opinion in the 2008 case of Crawford v. Marion County, stated that “there is no evidence of extensive fraud in U. S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election.” He further went on to say, “The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters.”

Stevens also said “photo identification is one effective method of establishing a voter’s qualification to vote and that the integrity of elections is enhanced through improved technology.” This idea is also supported by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.

Another argument that opponents of LB 239 use is that it disenfranchises poor, minorities and elderly voters. While opponents of the bill can say that we have no proof of voter fraud, they definitely cannot dispute that we have evidence that Voter ID laws can and do work.

In March of this year, Tennessee had it’s “Super Tuesday” primary, and a chance to test it’s new Voter ID law. It resulted in not one single documented case of a person not being allowed to vote.

Georgia enacted their Voter ID law in 2006. The ACLU and other organizations filed suit in federal court against the state. One claim was that “a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable Photo ID.” The federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in part because the plaintiffs were unable to provide evidence to substantiate those claims or “uncover anyone who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting’” by the photo ID requirement.

Photo IDs are required for many things in our daily lives, such as at going to airports, hospitals, and banks. If a person goes to a large store with a pharmacy, you need a photo ID in order to obtain some brands of over-the-counter cold medicine. The argument could be made then that poor, minorities and the elderly are denied the right to purchase these cold medicines because a photo ID is required. The counter argument that there is no comparison between the two because “there is no constitutional right to cold medicine” misses the point completely. The example of cold medicine does not argue about constitutionality. It does, however, argue against the claim that large numbers of poor, minorities, and elderly will not vote if a photo ID is necessary. If no one has been prevented from getting a cold pill because of the need for a photo ID, it stands to reason that the need for a photo ID won’t prevent anyone from voting.

Opponents of the bill are being disingenuous when they say “it will” disenfranchise voters. Where is the proof? They are using scare tactics and fear mongering to try and create opposition. They say “it will”, when they can’t even prove “it might”. It insults the intelligence of these Americans to claim that getting a photo ID is too laborious, too demanding, and ultimately disenfranchising.

The argument that is particularly troubling to me is the insinuation that elderly Americans will be disenfranchised. These are members of our “Greatest Generation”; the people who pulled this country through the Great Depression, who fought to protect our freedoms during World War II, who kept our country strong during the Cold War. But suddenly they can’t remember to bring an ID to vote or figure out how to get an ID? Opponents of the bill will say “they shouldn’t have to do that in the first place”, but they need to know it’s people from that generation who flood my office with phone calls, e-mails, and visits saying they can’t believe it’s not already a law. 

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=311227705586103&id=161360197231656