Elections Can't Really be Fair, Free and Accurate if Eligible Voters Can't Vote

Last week, the United States Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. This week, that new law garnered national attention when 12 elderly nuns were prevented from voting because they did not have the required government-issued ID.

This is the predictable result of a flawed law. We've been facing the same battle in my home state of Missouri. In fact, in 2006 our state Supreme Court struck down a similar law as unconstitutional. But now, the debate over whether to require government-issued ID's in order to vote is back.

This week, as the Missouri House of Representatives began its debate on this voter suppression legislation, I spoke to Sister Sandy Schwartz of the Franciscan Sisters of St. Mary the Angel. After she heard the story about the Indiana incident, she did a quick survey of the 35 nuns in her convent and found that 15 did not have a government-issued photo ID to vote -- therefore, no right to vote.

Another Missourian, Birdie Owen had a different story. Birdie relocated to Missouri after Hurricane Katrina and still uses her Louisiana ID. That's because she can't get a Missouri photo ID.

Why? Because her birth certificate was lost in the hurricane. And because a birth certificate is one of the documents required in order to get a Missouri photo ID, without one, no government-issued ID... therefore, no right to vote.

Another affected citizen is Kathleen Weinschenk. Kathy has cerebral palsy and because of her disability is unable to make a consistent signature or mark - so her signature might not match the signature on her voter registration record required by the Missouri law...therefore, no right to vote.

As Missouri's Secretary of State, it's my job to help ensure that our elections are fair, free and accurate. But it is also my job to protect the voting rights of every citizen. Not, 95% of our citizens. Not, just Missourians who have a drivers license or a passport.

Elections cannot be fair, free and accurate if eligible voters are not allowed to vote.

Across our country in recent years we've seen a disturbing trend. States have begun debating and passing restrictive laws allowing only those voters who can prove their identity by means of government-issued photo identification to vote.

I support the idea of voters identifying themselves at the polls. That's common sense. In Missouri, we ALREADY do just that.

So what is this debate all about? It's about whether we should only allow those Missourians with a certain kind of GOVERNMENT ISSUED photo ID to vote.

For most Missourians - and most Americans -- presenting a government ID is not a burden, most of us have a drivers license and we carry it with us all the time.

But for those citizens who don't have a drivers license or other government-issued ID, but nevertheless are legitimate, registered voters, it can be a great burden indeed.

My office has calculated how many Missouri voters risk being disenfranchised by this law. Our estimate, after comparing the state drivers and non-drivers license list with the list of registered voters, is that up to 240,000 Missourians could be impacted.

A new restrictive voting law would impact mostly the elderly, the disabled, the poor or even young people who may be 18 registered to vote but not yet drive.

The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Indiana's restrictive voter identification law now puts the idea of fair and free elections in jeopardy.

Let me give a couple more examples:

If you are married woman whose name has changed and you want to get a government-issued ID to vote, you need to bring your marriage license. If you lost that marriage license, it will cost you time and money to get a new copy. If you are divorced and remarried, you better bring along a copy of your divorce decree.

If you were born out of state and you want to get a Missouri government issued ID to vote you will need to write a letter to that state and ask for a certified copy of your birth certificate. It may cost you up to $30.00 to get a copy.

But in many states you'll face yet another problem...you are required to show a photo ID before they will provide a copy of your birth certificate.

In the case of Birdie, a natural disaster washed away all the bureaucratic documents required in order to get a government-issued photo ID. Tornadoes, floods and hurricanes shouldn't be cause for eligible citizens to lose their right to vote in this country.

If you lost your social security card, and you want to vote, you better make a trip to the social security office. You will also need to remember to bring along a copy of your birth certificate.

Supporters of these restrictive government ID laws falsely claim that because the state will provide "free" photo ID's to those who need them there is no hardship. But what the supporters of these laws fail to mention is that no government issued ID is really free.

As Missouri's Secretary of State, I will continue to fight for free, fair and accurate elections that allows all eligible Missourians to participate in the political process. But across the country, people need to know the real story and the real impact of these laws. Quite simply, they are undermining our democracy.

Comments

[HappyDae]

It sounds like MO's got a few messed up laws. Are these examples the exceptions or the rule? What is the estimated percentage of LEGAL voters being denied voting rights?

Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com

[dollphingurl]

i totally support having IDs - the right to vote is not being taken away - if anything, because it decreases the opportunity for people to defraud polling places by having a proper ID, it can amplify our rights as citizens to cast a vote.

i feel for the people who will have difficulty and inconvenience getting their paperwork together to obtain the proper government-issued ID - but come on, it's not like people are getting ambushed by insurgents on their way to City Hall to obtain their paperwork.

freedom is a privilege and a right that must be exercised, and the gov't. must assist those who have special needs or circumstances, but i still wholeheartedly agree with the gov't. ID requirement.

i am thoroughly pissed however, that certain ex-convicts lose their right to vote, period. what's up with THAT?

[naschkatze]

My state, Oregon, allows people to obtain photo IDs at the Dept. of Motor Vehicles solely for the purpose of providing them with a photo ID, not just for driver's licenses. I think one has to provide proof of one's residency rather than proof of one's citizenship so this gets around some of the situations Secretary Carnahan mentions. I don't how many other states provide this service.

This was an absolutely excellent post on a serious problem. Even before November more states besides Indiana will try to put the SCOTUS ruling into effect. I have e-mailed the DNC that this should be a top priority of the summer, providing all of our Democrats who have heretofore been accepted as legal voters with photo IDs.

[naschkatze]

Oh wait, that's also how you get registered to vote in Oregon, i.e., you show proof of residency, not citizenship.

[dbdzen]

It's simple, the right to vote is so fundamental that the upholders of the Constitution should go out of their way to protect it. These laws are almost tantamount to requiring a license to vote. If you passed a similarly restrictive law on gun ownership, the NRA and the Republican Party would raise hell. Voting is a more fundamental right of citizenship than gun ownership.

If States had been convicting thousands of people each election cycle for voter impersonation or fraud, then some of these measures would have been justified. To my surprise, at Federal level, with more than 200 million votes cast since 2000, the FBI has prosecuted less than 10 cases. Something is wrong with the law.

[martinchill]

it's simpler than that - votes have never mattered.

there's an election among the corporates long before we get to the polls.

the rest is moot.

[adamsmith]

Sorry, but voting is not a more fundamental right than gun ownership. You have no right to vote in a federal election. Look at the Constitution. It's not in there. This country went 40 years without a popular vote, only electoral. The popular vote still doesn't override the electoral. We're not a democracy, we're a Republic. Go back to school, do not collect $200................

[naschkatze]

One's right to vote is legally protected. Go look at the amendments to the Constitution. And popular vote may not trump the electoral vote, but it sure is the first step to the electoral count, and by most people's agreement, the electoral count should be a reflection of the will of the people. We are a Democratic Republic. You go back to school, adamsmith, and do not collect $200.

[Angelus2007]

You do need to show photo ID to purchase a gun...Which is a constitional right. And in some states you even need a gun license.

[bushflipflops]

WELL REGULATED militia. Maybe you should reread the 2nd amendment.

[dumboldfarmer]

Then there is the "Poll tax" issue. By law, in the United States, "poll taxes" are illegal. What is a poll tax?
Look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax
In effect, if you have to pay money to obtain the right to vote, you are paying a poll tax. If it costs you to obtain a state ID, or to secure documents to obtain a state ID, then you are paying a poll tax. One of the most disenfranchised groups would be senior voters. Many senior voters cannot even get copies of their birth certificates because they might not be archived. Some seniors have to produce bible records, etc., just to get social security benefits.
There is no doubt some voters will be disenfranchised, and it will be done illegally based on the tenets of settled law. But then that is the point, isn't it?

[wolfi101]

Yes, you have to be careful about restricting, taxing, or otherwise making it difficult to vote.

Although I do not believe this to be the cases here, historically, these tactics have been used with underlying motives --- to prevent ( most notably ) ethnic minorities from the right to vote.

( lol @ bible records --- I don't think, we have anyone still living in the US, who is mentioned in the bible. )

[Robin in Missouri]

Personally, I think everyone should have to provide a birth certificate or naturalization papers and a photo ID before they can become a registered voter. A photo ID could be a school issued ID, or any goverment or state ID.

[blessedfrog]

Yes but that 98 year old nun who was turned away at the polls in Indiana - had no school id. No birth certificate either.

[wolfi101]

There really should have been some or more of a grace period here - allowing people with previous, legal forms of ID to use those.

[LoRiseAntlers]

I.m sorry,but this is pretty much a load of BS.Your "Katrina victim" could just send in a few bucks to the State of Louisiana and get a new birth certificate.I volunteer in a senior center and can tell you every senior citizen we service has a photo ID(it's required by MISSOURI state law for them to receive services).You cannot be legally employed in this country without photo ID.You cannot receive welfare benefits in this country without photo ID.You can't drive a car legally in this country without a driver's license,which is photo ID.You can't board a plane without photo ID.

This is BS.You know it,and so does every other opponent of photo ID voting laws.

[dsbsh]

I'm sorry, but your "Katrina victim" could just pay? Ignoring the practical difficulties faced by a person who has faced something like Katrina-- your lack of compassion is staggering-- you've just described a poll tax. Constitutionally, you can't impose a financial burden on citizens wanting to exercise their right to vote, period.

America, where one person's fundamental right is another person's BS.

[middleoftheroadami]

Pretty lame excuses to uphold the law. As one example, I received a duplicate of my SS card within minutes and never had to produce a copy of my birth certificate. The items required are items that everyone should have anyway. You should be providing the help to the extremely few that have unique problems and helping them get the documents necessary to vote, if they are unable to it because of sone disability. The Supreme court only upheld that a voter ID was required. How they obtain that ID is a state issue and you, as secretary of state, have the responsibilty to ensure that every eligible voter is able to vote, and every ineligible voter is denied that ability. Quit complaining about the few who have unique problems and help them solve those problems.

[Donkslayer]

No kidding, and great post. Instead of whining about it, help those "legitimate" voters to get ID's, rather than kid yourself that the "only" thing people can't do without an ID is vote.

[tcagle]

I agree completely. The people I know with no ID are that way by choice, or call them deadasses if you prefer.

[mommamia526]

All those instances mentioned where you need proof, such as a divorce decree, etc. apply to everything and it is amazing to me, that his blogger wants to change the rules for voting in U.S. elections. Voting still remains free. One does not pay a fee before going into the voting booth, or a yearly fee to be able to vote. She should worry about accuracy of voting outcomes where one does NOT have to show a photo ID. Or, in those cases where a party member of another party in conjunction with the party chairman of a party set up rules which disenfranchise voters in states, such as now in Florida and Michigan. Certainly one does not get an accurate voting record if the voters of whole states do not count! If the few bucks it costs to get an ID is too much to pay, this blogger should make a case for that issue, not the ID issue itself. Poor people, and older persons, for example, as well as some disabled, may get a discount on such things as bus fares, but they do need an ID in case proof is requested. And is it not the case, that one needs an ID for such things as welfare, Medicaid, etc.? I do not know about that, but it appears to me that that would be logical.

[mommamia526]

What is the problem? Yes, a photo ID costs a few bucks. Where I live it was about $ 10.--. All those poor nuns who do not have photo ID's, we do have to feel sorry for them. It is a hardship! And those persons who lost their birth certificates. My, my!. You know what, if you lose your birth certificate you can request a new one. Yes, that too costs a few bucks. You can even do that if you are a *fureigner*, and in that case you need to get one which has at least two validations on your birth certificate (signatures) of qualified persons. In fact, even if you do have a totally valid birth certificate from another country, you have to request another validated one. It also must be recent. This is needed for a number of situations, a.o. it may be needed to get Social Security, even if you have been an U.S. citizen for decades. If you do not have a drivers' license, you can still get a photo ID. When I go to the doctor's office, or to the hospital for tests, I have to submit my insurance cards PLUS an ID. Those poor voters who do not have an ID! Let them go get one already! Do you want illegals to vote in U.S. elections to further their influence in our government?

[dsbsh]

So, we need to have a poll tax (unconstitutional) to stop illegals from voting (no evidence of this being a problem). A bit like peeing on the Constitution to protect it from someone breaking in and setting it on fire.

[nellie]

Thank you for this important article. There is so much wrong without our election system right now. This is just one aspect. How are we going to put things right when, rather than expanding democracy, the current judges—who are going to be around for a while—seem hell bent on disenfranchising as many people as possible? From the corruption of Bush v Gore to this, our Supreme Court justices are not on the side of democracy.

[lucky54]

Regardless what happends next.... I think that countrys where there is only one name on a ballot have more honest elections - at least they don't lie to their voters like our politicians do. It's all a game, and we let them train us very well to take part in it and we dance to their music. Just please look around and what you see (the stage of our great country) is the result of many elections and generations of voters. Did we really vote for it?? Nobody can answer, but we have what we deserve.... Please start thinking, stop believe MSM (that's what they want you to do) start looking for independent sources of informations, educate yourself, read the Constitution, try to read and understand the Electoral Collage law. Think if it makes any sense to you and whom it benefits, become an educated voter and not a parrot. Stop believing in a lies that media is repeting 24/7 and ask yourself why do they lie ??? Whom for??? Is this for us ??? or??? Who benefits from all of this year after year, election after election... if there is so much difference between Democrats and Republicans why don't we see and feel the difference if the powers change???

[lucky54]

American elctions has never been democratic and this system benefits both partys, that's why there is no reason for either one to change the system. Every state has different law, in a primaries some have coucuses, other pirmaries, some primaries are open (for manipulation mostly) some are close. And if this wasn't enough after all the strugle with undemocratic system there comes delegates and superdelegates... Dear Lord can anybody believe in democratic elections here ???? And please don't tell me that all of this mess makes sense and it was created when people didn't have access to information and the country was too big for not that many people ..... Are we still to stupid to not take adventage of easy access to information ??? Well in many actually too many cases the answer is YES.
In a realy democratic elections there is one vote for a one man and no need for midlleman (delegates)not many of us know that most of american presidents never got a popular vote. What's the reason to vote ?? knowing that your vote doesn't count anyway and it can be maniupulated either way??
Maybe if people will be smart enough and ignore the elections completly something would change. Well that's my wishful thinking.... it won't happend. We americans are to attached to our "right to vote" and we don't care any more that our vote has no power, as long as we can vote we'll go and do it.

[aceholiday]

real americans get real american made ids for america

[Deaninphilly]

Oh, Please again with this crap. Didn't we just have an article on this in the beginning of the week? Yes.

She can't get an ID because her birth certificate was lost in Katrina. Well, did any of you "reporters" tell her that Louisiana has a copy of it in their archives and she could get another copy of her birth certificate? Surely, she knew months and months ago that she lost her birth certificate and should have replaced it long before trying to go and vote.

As for name changes that is crapola as well. It's really not difficult at all, I changed my name years ago with little to no problems. Being a former Election Judge myself if a woman is now married using her married name why hasn't she changed her voters registration when she changed everything else? Even if it is overlooked all one has to do is bring a copy of her marriage certificate with her to the polls, it's fine. Don't tell me that a woman doesn't keep that kind of stuff not too mention you get several copies of it to send off to the varying government agencies to change your name in the first place.

In today's world where a State issued ID is needed for everything including having a job I find it remarkable that these people have ID's for them but all of the sudden don't when it comes time to vote.

Spare me your drama and BS "news" article.