Voter Identification

This is my first blog post because if you are to judge me on one issue, and one issue only, this should be it. I think it perfectly demonstrates my approach to policy, and it puts me up against the “common sense” that others so often rely on.

In recent years, there has been a push by Republicans to increase the requirements for being able to vote. Currently, the ID requirement for voting is that you must either provide a photo ID, or you can provide your signature. Around the country (and here in Michigan), Republicans have wanted to decrease the number of identification options voters have. They think that limiting it to certain photo IDs would decrease voter fraud, and is a “common sense” policy since most of us use photo IDs in our daily lives, so why not for voting as well.

I think the appropriate way to evaluate most policy proposals is with a cost/benefit analysis. According to the Republicans’ position, the cost/benefit for more restrictive voter ID rules is:

Cost- none

Benefit- decreasing voter fraud; “common sense”

If those outcomes are what we could actually expect from the policy, it is logical to support the more restrictive ID rules. But unfortunately, those cost/benefits are based on an alternate-reality. The real consequences of the policy instead make it absolutely clear that the policy does more harm than good.

Let’s start with the claimed benefits of the policy. Decreasing voter fraud- is that actually what we should expect from the policy? No, for multiple reasons. To begin with, “voter fraud” is an umbrella term that includes things such as ballot tampering, which the ID requirements have no impact on. The only form of voter fraud that new ID requirements could attempt to address is voter impersonation, where an individual attempts to vote as someone they are not. Yet voter impersonation is virtually non-existent. While I can’t prove a negative, meaning I can’t prove voter impersonation does not occur, there is no evidence to suggest that it does. And so the policy would not decrease what is currently non-existent.

But let’s consider for a moment that voter impersonation is a problem. Would photo ID requirements stop it? No, as I’ll use the same argument that many NRA members use when discussing guns. If a criminal really wanted to commit voter impersonation, forcing them to take an additional step of acquiring a fake photo ID is not so challenging as to stop their crime (it’s no more challenging than acquiring an illegal gun). All that the restrictive ID requirement would do is prevent law-abiding citizens (that don’t happen to have the specific ID) from being able to vote.

The most important part of this analysis though is the cost, which the Republicans seem to ignore altogether. There are citizens in this country who do not have the IDs required under the Republican legislation, and they have absolutely no ability to obtain the ID. Whether it is because they are seniors, and their birth certificate does not exist as they were not born in a hospital, or maybe they no longer have their marriage license, there are actual cases of individuals who would be forever disenfranchised as a result of the policy. It may not be a very large number, but they alone outnumber the instances of voter impersonation. The larger cost though is the number of legal voters who don’t have the newly required IDs, and while they could theoretically obtain them, there are significant hurdles that they would have to overcome to do so. Most of the individuals that don’t have the IDs in question are living in poverty. If you are working a minimum-wage job, it may not be an option for you to take a day off so that you can go to the Secretary of State office to get the ID. Additionally, many of the Secretary of State offices located in areas of high poverty have been closed in recent years, so those citizens would have to travel longer distances to obtain the ID, which is no easy task if you don’t have a driver’s license.

So in the real world, the cost/benefit of the Republicans’ policy is:

Cost- complete disenfranchisement of some legal voters; effective disenfranchisement of others

Benefit- “common sense”

Based on that analysis, I don’t care how much someone thinks more restrictive ID requirements are “common sense”, that does not justify preventing citizens from casting legitimate votes. The only way you could still support the policy is if you look at those ‘costs’ and consider them a feature, not a flaw. If you want to prevent certain individuals from being able to vote, the policy is the perfect mechanism for achieving that end.

How many legitimate votes are you willing to block, in order to prevent a fraudulent one? Personally, I think even a 1:1 ratio is too much, as it is worse to prevent a vote that should be counted, rather than counting one that shouldn’t. And if you are to look objectively at reality, you can’t deny that significantly more legal voters will be disenfranchised by these policies than fraudulent ones blocked.

So is there any compromise I would support? Sure. I am open to increasing the penalty for voter impersonation. If a criminal is considering whether or not to commit voter fraud, they are going to look at the odds of getting caught (which is what the more restrictive ID requirements claim to improve), but they will also consider the punishment for getting caught. I would be willing to entertain policy that would change the latter, since that would not punish law-abiding citizens.

This issue may not be as glamorous as others, and it may not have any direct effect on your life, but it is fundamental to our democracy. The idea that so many elected officials are willing to (if not hoping to) keep legal votes from being cast should be a national embarrassment.

Jordan Genso is a Democratic candidate for State Representative in Michigan's 47th District, which includes the townships of Hartland and Tyrone. Labor donated by Jordan Genso for State Rep. 462 Hosta, Howell, MI 48843