Voter I.D. debate mostly overblown energy waster

When it comes to voter I.D. laws, facts are elusive at best. Everything seems tainted by one or another political agenda.

A judge this week put Pennsylvania’s voter I.D. law on ice, at least for this year, because he couldn’t assure himself that everyone who needs a photo I.D. from the state was going to get one in time.

Barring an appeal, that settles the issue there for this election, but not in the long run. Similar laws in other states have passed court tests. Nor does it bring any clarity to an issue that seems dominated by nonsense on both sides.

Democrats say requiring voters to show a picture I.D. before receiving a ballot would disenfranchise many poor and disabled voters, who tend to vote for Democrats. The Brennan Center For Justice estimates as many as 10 percent of the voting population lacks such identification.

Really? If I go out on the street anywhere in this country and look around, one of every 10 people I see is not going to be carrying a picture I.D.? And this would be someone who normally votes in elections but won’t be able to because of this?

Try functioning without identification and see how far you get. This is an age in which a photo I.D. is required for a long list of everyday activities from banking to buying some over-the-counter medications to hopping on an airplane. Much of the time, I can’t even make a credit card purchase without also showing a clerk my driver license.

Yes, there are people out there without I.D., who want to vote. But I think a more believable percentage came out of the recent Franklin & Marshall College poll in Pennsylvania. It found that only 2 percent of voters there say they lack proper identification.

Still, it is important that those 2 percent be allowed to vote. That’s why Pennsylvania’s voter I.D. law requires the state to issue a valid I.D. to any voter who requests one. This seems reasonable, provided they can easily get one in time.

But on the other side are Republicans who claim identification is necessary in order to stem voter fraud. They have a hard time demonstrating this is a real problem.

In Kansas, Secretary of State Kris W. Kobach says 221 such incidents occurred there between 1997 and 2010. That’s an awfully small number when spread out across 13 years.

However, Kobach makes the argument in a Washington Post op-ed that the number is not insignificant when applied to certain extremely close elections, where small numbers could change the outcome.

He also references evidence found in Minnesota that 341 felons illegally voted in the 2008 election.

Underlying all of this are opinion polls that show Americans clearly want voter I.D. laws and see them as useful. The Franklin Marshall College poll found that 87 percent of voters in Pennsylvania knew about that state’s requirement, and 59 percent of registered voters approved of it.

Kobach referenced a SurveyUSA poll in 2010 that found 85 percent of Kansans supported it.

As usual when it comes to politics, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle of all the arguments.

It would be naïve to think there aren’t people out there trying to affect election results through fraud. There are examples of this throughout history. However, widespread voter fraud is extremely difficult to carry out. The days of political voting machines that could organize bosses, get election judges appointed and stuff ballot boxes are probably over. There are too many eyes out there, including every cell phone camera in the nation, and electronic voting machines are difficult to hack.

But it also seems a stretch to say wide swaths of the country would be disenfranchised by requiring an I.D.

The bottom line is voter I.D. laws would be one more tool against minor fraud. But they have to come with some guarantee that every voter who needs one will have ready access to a card.

In most states, however, the issue simply doesn’t seem worth all the energy people are expending.


About the Author

Jay Evensen

Jay Evensen is the Senior Editorial Columnist for the Deseret News. He has 32 years of journalism experience covering politics and a variety of other assignments at news organizations ranging from United Press International in New York City to the Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Deseret News, where he has worked since 1986. During that time, he has won numerous local, regional and national awards. Most recently, he was given the Cameron Duncan Media Award, given annually in Washington, D.C., by the advocacy group RESULTS, to the journalist judged to have done the most to further the cause of the world's poorest people.


  1. electedface

    There is nothing wrong with requiring an ID to vote.


    There IS something wrong with implementing this new law 9 months before a presidential election. If voter fraud was so rampant in the last election, why didn’t the GOP rush to pass this law immediately after the 2008 election? Wait until the 2016 election to impose this, that way it will give people 4 years to get their act together, and THEN you can give them the ‘you have no excuse’ treatment.

    Watch the video and sign the petition to end Voter Suppression.

  2. Schwa

    Photo IDs cost money. Requiring something that costs money in order to vote is tantamount to a poll tax. Poll taxes are unconstitutional. Voter ID is also unconstitutional unless the state provides a way to get a free ID.

  3. Effie Ilene

    “Try functioning without identification and see how far you get. This is an age in which a photo I.D. is required for a long list of everyday activities from banking to buying some over-the-counter medications to hopping on an airplane. Much of the time, I can’t even make a credit card purchase without also showing a clerk my driver license.”

    Really? And how often do you think poor people fly or make credit card purchases?

    I can have my check direct deposited and withdraw the funds from an ATM with a debit card and pay for my purchases in cash and no one will ever ask to see my ID.

    15 years ago I moved into an apartment and didn’t have to show ID.
    My pharmacist knows me and my children by name and hasn’t asked for photo ID since I can’t remember when. Additionally, the few times I am prescribed narcotic medication, my husband can sign for it and use his ID.

    It is entirely possible to function in the world today without photo ID.

    The types of voter fraud that so many people seem so worried about, aren’t addressed by having photo ID anyway.

    This whole issue is a distraction and nothing more.

Leave a Reply to Effie Ilene Cancel reply encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.