Common Sense: Protect Voter Integrity

Opinion polls show more than a majority of Americans support the need for photo identification when turning up to vote. Last Wednesday, the House of Representatives passed the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 by a vote of 228-196. It would require voters to present a government-issued photo ID to cast a ballot in federal elections beginning in 2008. The legislation aims to prevent election fraud, especially voting by non-citizens.

It seems to make perfect sense. During USG elections, each student must present their Case ID and sign their name before casting his/her ballot. Why would this be difficult for people to accept in our federal elections? Even after registering to vote, you do need to prove who you are when you go to the polling station. With a photo ID, we can make sure that Mr. John Doe is actually Mr. John Doe.

However, the ACLU believes this requirement imposes an unnecessary and undue burden on the exercise of the fundamental right to vote who are eligible, registered, and qualified to vote. Their reasoning is based on the premise that the photo ID requirement is a poll tax which disadvantages racial and ethnic minority voters, elderly, voters with disabilities, and certain religious objectors.

They cite the Department of Justice's (DOJ) conclusions that imposing photo identification as a prerequisite for voting would have an adverse impact on black voters. In 1994, the DOJ found that African-American persons in Louisiana were four to five times less likely than white persons to have drivers' licenses or other picture identification cards. In addition, the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) noted in its 1997 report to Congress that photo ID's entails major expenses, both initially and in maintenance, and presents an undue and potentially discriminatory burden on citizens in exercising their basic right to vote.

Now let's see if I want to get a photo ID in the state of NJ. The drivers license would cost me $24 initially after taking the examination and road test. It would cost me $24 to renew. If I wanted a non-drivers photo ID, it would also cost me $24.

In Ohio, a new license would cost $23 (if 21 or older) and renewal would be $24. The Ohio ID card would cost $8.50 for initial and renewal.

A US passport equivalent would cost you $97 if it's a new application. Renewing your passport would cost $67.

The reasoning seems justified since not everyone could afford the cost of attaining a photo ID from their respective state or country. Could it be possible for Congress to enact a law where getting your photo ID (non-driver) is "free" to all US citizens? Of course we would pay in order to get that drivers license or permits, but the standard ID card should be complementary. I wonder if this is sufficient enough to allay the concerns of the ACLU and the Democrats.

Republicans are advocating preserving the integrity of our elections. Democrats are more concerned about accessibility to vote in the elections. Why can't we merge these concerns and provide an "actual" solution?

Already, Republicans and conservative groups are accusing Democrats of wanting illegals to vote. Democrats reasoned that the new legislation would hurt racial and ethnic minorities who are unable to afford a photo ID, and these groups tend to vote Democratic, so they accuse Republicans of trying to reduce their voter turnout.

So how should we solve this problem?

It is definitely true that a person coming in to vote must prove who they are, and are eligible to vote for that specific constituency and federal election. It is also true that the person must be able to attain a valid identification with relatively little or no problems. At the basic minimum, each state must be able to provide a photo ID to a resident having proved the basic identity requirements without charge.