glass houses
Recent legislation requiring photo IDs to vote seems to be a talking point (a term I hate because I think it helps legitimize "snapshot arguments," but will obviously use sometimes) among my Democratic friends recently.
My take? Democrats have too much glass in their houses to throw that particular stone.
True, these laws are often an ugly attempt to depress voter turnout among groups that tend Democratic, and I don't like that, but Democrats moved heaven and earth in 2004 to challenge signatures and keep Ralph Nader off the ballot so that he wouldn't take votes away from John Kerry, so pretty clearly the party is only in favor of more choice for more people if it's not disadvantageous to them. When it is, they've shown themselves perfectly willing to take away people's choices.
But that's not the glass in their houses. The glass is their stunning failure to fight poverty by getting poor people and minorities photo IDs. Photo IDs are necessary and/or helpful for huge numbers of things in life today. Proving who you are in court. Driving on public highways. Flying or taking Amtrak-- as for example to a job interview. Cashing a check. Redeeming a lottery ticket. Getting married. Renting a nicer property (my rental agent requires photocopying the applicants' driver's licenses). Taking the SATs, ACTs, GREs or professional-license exams. Getting many jobs. Setting up bank accounts. How could the inability to do this possibly _not_ help keep you poor?
The objections made are:
1.) Cost. Poor people often don't have the money for it, supposedly. Except they do. A photo ID in Pennsylvania costs $13.50. Forgoing two or three meals at McDonald's will hurt no one's wallet (or waistline). So let's assume that that fee's a little below average among states, for the sake of argument, and talk about the states waiving the fees. If $15 is the average, how much would it cost per state to get all people of voting age photo ID? There are 225 million Americans 18 or over, and the Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as many as 11% of them don't have photo ID. Suppose it's about that number, for the sake of argument-- 25 million, let's say. 25 million times $15 is $375 million for all 50 states, or an average per state of $7,500,000. A medium-sized state (like Pennsylvania) is probably not far off the average in budget. Last year it spent $27 billion, meaning waiving ID card fees for poor people would be .0003 of the budget. And that's the budget of one year, while ID cards and drivers' licenses are valid for several years.
2.) Lack of birth certificates. A failure to get people identification can't be justified by citing a lack of identification. Get them. Send people out and get them working with people to get their birth certificates, which I might point out never expire. Pennsylvania, which actually waived the requirement of having one, back in May, charges all of $10 to get a duplicate birth certificate (as opposed to, say, a liberal bastion like Massachusetts, which charges $18 in person, or $28 by mail, and $25 for the photo ID). Get laws proposed in state legislatures to waive the requirement for people old enough to have been born at home or during pre-mandatory-birth-certificate days, or get them to specify alternatives. Can't do it? So much for "yes we can."
When gauged against the benefits to poor people, the difficulty in getting them photo IDs are hysterically minuscule, but all we've been hearing from Democrats is how awful the Republicans are. Why haven't Democrats done much on this? I'm going to sound cynical, but there's no help for it. Democratic leaders only want to fight poverty in ways that provide immediate benefits (ideally out of their opponents' pockets) and therefore are politically profitable. Photo IDs? Financial education? Criticism, even friendly, of poor people's habits? Forget it.
My take? Democrats have too much glass in their houses to throw that particular stone.
True, these laws are often an ugly attempt to depress voter turnout among groups that tend Democratic, and I don't like that, but Democrats moved heaven and earth in 2004 to challenge signatures and keep Ralph Nader off the ballot so that he wouldn't take votes away from John Kerry, so pretty clearly the party is only in favor of more choice for more people if it's not disadvantageous to them. When it is, they've shown themselves perfectly willing to take away people's choices.
But that's not the glass in their houses. The glass is their stunning failure to fight poverty by getting poor people and minorities photo IDs. Photo IDs are necessary and/or helpful for huge numbers of things in life today. Proving who you are in court. Driving on public highways. Flying or taking Amtrak-- as for example to a job interview. Cashing a check. Redeeming a lottery ticket. Getting married. Renting a nicer property (my rental agent requires photocopying the applicants' driver's licenses). Taking the SATs, ACTs, GREs or professional-license exams. Getting many jobs. Setting up bank accounts. How could the inability to do this possibly _not_ help keep you poor?
The objections made are:
1.) Cost. Poor people often don't have the money for it, supposedly. Except they do. A photo ID in Pennsylvania costs $13.50. Forgoing two or three meals at McDonald's will hurt no one's wallet (or waistline). So let's assume that that fee's a little below average among states, for the sake of argument, and talk about the states waiving the fees. If $15 is the average, how much would it cost per state to get all people of voting age photo ID? There are 225 million Americans 18 or over, and the Brennan Center for Justice estimates that as many as 11% of them don't have photo ID. Suppose it's about that number, for the sake of argument-- 25 million, let's say. 25 million times $15 is $375 million for all 50 states, or an average per state of $7,500,000. A medium-sized state (like Pennsylvania) is probably not far off the average in budget. Last year it spent $27 billion, meaning waiving ID card fees for poor people would be .0003 of the budget. And that's the budget of one year, while ID cards and drivers' licenses are valid for several years.
2.) Lack of birth certificates. A failure to get people identification can't be justified by citing a lack of identification. Get them. Send people out and get them working with people to get their birth certificates, which I might point out never expire. Pennsylvania, which actually waived the requirement of having one, back in May, charges all of $10 to get a duplicate birth certificate (as opposed to, say, a liberal bastion like Massachusetts, which charges $18 in person, or $28 by mail, and $25 for the photo ID). Get laws proposed in state legislatures to waive the requirement for people old enough to have been born at home or during pre-mandatory-birth-certificate days, or get them to specify alternatives. Can't do it? So much for "yes we can."
When gauged against the benefits to poor people, the difficulty in getting them photo IDs are hysterically minuscule, but all we've been hearing from Democrats is how awful the Republicans are. Why haven't Democrats done much on this? I'm going to sound cynical, but there's no help for it. Democratic leaders only want to fight poverty in ways that provide immediate benefits (ideally out of their opponents' pockets) and therefore are politically profitable. Photo IDs? Financial education? Criticism, even friendly, of poor people's habits? Forget it.