Election law stymies fraud
N.C. should heed Supreme Court's voter ID decision
Issue date: 5/15/08 Section: Opinion
Don't feel like leaving the house on Election Day? No problem! Just have your neighbor vote for you.
For first-time voters, last week's primary revealed one of the cracks in our local election process. At the polling places, voters must simply state their names and addresses to receive a ballot.
Election officials are not required to ask for a driver's license; they don't have to ask for a Social Security number - they don't even have to ask for a VisArt card.
North Carolina must rewrite its election laws to prevent voter fraud and, more importantly, to instill faith in the efficacy of the process; its integrity should not rest on the honor system.
With this in mind, precincts should require that all voter identities be confirmed by documentation.
In an April decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld a law in Indiana which requires voters to have a government-issued ID to receive a ballot at their polling stations.
Critics of the law say that the requirements have been pushed by the Republicans as a method for discouraging minorities and the elderly from voting - two groups who are less likely to have ID (and two groups that primarily vote for the Democrats).
They said that Indiana's primary would be rife with disenfranchised voters. It wasn't.
The law provides for those who do not drive or have acceptable documentation by allowing them to receive free picture IDs. But the fear remains that requiring ID is akin to voter intimidation and will keep people home on Election Day.
If that's the case, Americans must address a more pressing issue: How did we let our democracy fall so ill that a simple act such as having to show an ID would prevent citizens from fulfilling their most basic civic duty?
We must entertain the very real possibility that the flaws of our current voting process are hurting this country far more than the proposed solutions.
Americans stay home in incredible numbers because we do not have faith in the system - or in our candidates.
We have a system that weighs some votes more than others, that excludes third parties, that trusts elections to machines with no paper trails.
And because of this, we are disillusioned.
While an ID requirement will not solve all these problems, it can restore at least some of our faith in the system.
And that's a start.
For first-time voters, last week's primary revealed one of the cracks in our local election process. At the polling places, voters must simply state their names and addresses to receive a ballot.
Election officials are not required to ask for a driver's license; they don't have to ask for a Social Security number - they don't even have to ask for a VisArt card.
North Carolina must rewrite its election laws to prevent voter fraud and, more importantly, to instill faith in the efficacy of the process; its integrity should not rest on the honor system.
With this in mind, precincts should require that all voter identities be confirmed by documentation.
In an April decision, the United States Supreme Court upheld a law in Indiana which requires voters to have a government-issued ID to receive a ballot at their polling stations.
Critics of the law say that the requirements have been pushed by the Republicans as a method for discouraging minorities and the elderly from voting - two groups who are less likely to have ID (and two groups that primarily vote for the Democrats).
They said that Indiana's primary would be rife with disenfranchised voters. It wasn't.
The law provides for those who do not drive or have acceptable documentation by allowing them to receive free picture IDs. But the fear remains that requiring ID is akin to voter intimidation and will keep people home on Election Day.
If that's the case, Americans must address a more pressing issue: How did we let our democracy fall so ill that a simple act such as having to show an ID would prevent citizens from fulfilling their most basic civic duty?
We must entertain the very real possibility that the flaws of our current voting process are hurting this country far more than the proposed solutions.
Americans stay home in incredible numbers because we do not have faith in the system - or in our candidates.
We have a system that weighs some votes more than others, that excludes third parties, that trusts elections to machines with no paper trails.
And because of this, we are disillusioned.
While an ID requirement will not solve all these problems, it can restore at least some of our faith in the system.
And that's a start.
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 6
Joyce McCloy
posted 5/18/08 @ 7:14 PM EST
I want to correct one point made in the article:
"We have a system that weighs some votes more than others, that excludes third parties, that trusts elections to machines with no paper trails. (Continued…)
Clint Johnson
posted 5/18/08 @ 10:11 PM EST
Joyce,
My apologies for any confusion. The "machines with no paper trails" refers to the American system in general, which (at least as far as I know) does not have a uniform law requiring paper ballots in all states. (Continued…)
k
posted 5/19/08 @ 10:06 AM EST
Voter fraud is a felony. That means you go to prison if you get caught. As a result, the hypothetical situation mentioned at the beginning of this shameful editorial, voting on behalf of one's neighbor, happens statistically zero percent of the time. (Continued…)
k
posted 5/19/08 @ 11:57 AM EST
"There is absolutely no way to verify your assertion."
How about a 1.4 million-dollar investigation?
The Texas attorney general did just that and found only 26 actionable cases of voter fraud, 18 of which involved absentee ballots, for which voter ID laws are irrelevant. (Continued…)
Post a Comment