This is a neat narrative, but there are tens of thousands of DMV locations all over the country. Appointments can be booked ahead of time to minimize time impact. It only needs to be done once every few years. Documentation is available in English and Spanish. That being said, to participate in civics in the U.S. you need to know some English. It's part of the citizenship test, and the laws are written in English.
The reality is that ID card holding rates correlate with race, income, and age[1][2][3] in a way that those advocating for ID requirements benefit from. When the consequences of such a system result in race, age, and income disparities, the purpose of such a system is, functionally, to disenfranchise on race, age, and income.
The fact is that there are millions[4] more, black, brown, hispanic, young, and poor people without than there are white, old, and rich people. Claiming that people can get IDs is a far step from realizing the logistical implications of such a claim. And why would someone? The point is that they won't, that in elections where tens or hundreds of thousands of votes decide the outcome, millions of people won't be able to vote and their inability will be individualized and trivialized into, "If it was important for them to vote, then they would have gotten IDs," while disavowing the discussion we're having right now - the one where the consequences of such system-building is being laid out.
It sounds like what you want to say is that you think it's more fair that people with IDs should play a greater role in elections than those who don't because they have more skin in the game, they've done more things right, and they contribute more to society, but you know that isn't exactly ok to say.
why is it that, in discussions like these, nobody ever wants to try to solve any able-to-get-ID disparities that may or may not exist, instead choosing to always assume it's an inherent, intractable issue?
I can see how it looks that way. What I see, rather, is that the costs of voter fraud prevention are much less than the cost of getting everyone an ID.
A shortcut to determine if this is really about ID or not is exploring the hypothetical, "Would voter ID proponents be satiated if IDs were instantly printable at polling stations provided the requirements for ID were the same?"
Instead it appears as though voter-ID proponents tend to weigh voter fraud much more than voter suppression: ie: it's much much worse if one person fraudulently votes than if one person is disenfranchised. Or in other words, the purity and sanctity of elections is tainted by a single fraudulent vote but not a single disenfranchisement.
1. Definitely open to being better informed on this. Please set me straight if this isn't the case.
If you go look up past debates over the issue, you'll find that people have proposed solutions to that problem, only to have some politicians not be willing to pay for those solutions.
There have also been support for widening kinds of proof of identity allowed, and again there are politicians who are against that.
There had previously been debate over a free and easy-to-get national ID, but usually the pushback on that comes from people not wanting to feel tracked by the government.
I have to wonder if that would have more support today than in the past because of the amount of surveillance happening by private companies.
Because it's a red herring, feel good but not very logical argument meant to shut down discussion. Doesn't matter that you need an id to work, to fly, to buy cigarettes, etc. No one is arguing that the TSA is racist for requiring id to fly.
> In the event you arrive at the airport without valid identification, because it is lost or at home, you may still be allowed to fly. The TSA officer may ask you to complete an identity verification process which includes collecting information such as your name, current address, and other personal information to confirm your identity. If your identity is confirmed, you will be allowed to enter the screening checkpoint. You will be subject to additional screening, to include a patdown and screening of carry-on property.
You will not be allowed to enter the security checkpoint if your identity cannot be confirmed, you choose to not provide proper identification or you decline to cooperate with the identity verification process.
^ From your TSA link above. You mightpossibly be able to fly if they can validate your identity by other means, which basically involves cross-referencing your existing identity documentation in their database. Otherwise, you can't fly.
You don't seem to be considering a variety of important factors here:
- Unhoused individuals who have the right to vote are unable to afford to pay for ID
- Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a weekend (which might be required for someone working a 9-5 job)
- Even if you can go on a weekday, in some places you have to go across multiple counties to get to a DMV. If you don't have a car and need to take a bus, that can mean spending most of the day on the bus to get to the DMV, which may mean you cannot get back home the same day. This is a reality for some people, and those people won't necessarily be able to rely on a friend to drive them (see the above about people working 9-5), and don't have money to spend on a Taxi/Uber/Lyft.
- Some people lack documentation required to get a state ID or driver's license. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but previous homelessness is one. It can be expensive and time consuming to fix that issue in some cases.
Thus far I've not seen any politician pushing for strict voter ID laws also willing to fund ensuring that everyone who is entitled to vote is provided with a proper ID if needed, and until that changes you're going to see people pushing back on those laws.
> Unhoused individuals who have the right to vote are unable to afford to pay for ID
It sounds like you should be arguing for free IDs for the homeless. That being said, I spent $12 on my most recent visit to the DMV to get a new license. It is not an expensive endeavor. This is not an argument against voter ids.
> Contrary to what you're saying, in some places it's multiple hours drive to find a DMV that's open on a weekend (which might be required for someone working a 9-5 job)
You can go to the DMV on your lunch break. You can also let your employer know you need a new id and they will let you go. People regularly take brief moments and breaks off work to tend to chores, children, doctor appointments, etc. This is a really bad argument.
Actually, to even be legally employed with a e-verify, you need an ID to prove your status.
Again, a poor argument.
> Some people lack documentation required to get a state ID or driver's license. This can happen for a variety of reasons, but previous homelessness is one. It can be expensive and time consuming to fix that issue in some cases.
There are programs to assist the homeless with this very thing. The homeless are < 0.1% of the population. It's great to be thinking about them. Programs should exist. But you can't possibly argue that such exceptions are an argument against voter id. The opportunity for abuse and manipulation in the absence of id is too great. Everyone is disenfranchised when voting rules are lax and ID is not verified.
> It sounds like you should be arguing for free IDs for the homeless.
I'd absolutely be in support of that, and not just the homeless.
People have proposed this in the past, and somehow some politicians don't want to pay for it.
> That being said, I spent $12 on my most recent visit to the DMV to get a new license. It is not an expensive endeavor.
Do you understand how many people have to choose between food or medical care each month, and barely make rent? You might not think $12 plus the cost of transportation, plus potentially unpaid time off work, costs much, but it's a lot to some people.
> You can go to the DMV on your lunch break.
Again, not everyone is 10 minutes from a DMV. In some parts of the country you're not going to find a DMV in the same county. Many people have 30-60 minute lunch breaks with no flexibility. Many people have no paid vacation days.
There's a reason that courts have regularly thrown out voter ID laws, and it's because they disproportionately disenfranchise the poor.
> There are programs to assist the homeless with this very thing. The homeless are < 0.1% of the population. It's great to be thinking about them. Programs should exist. But you can't possibly argue that such exceptions are an argument against voter id.
It's not just homeless. It's also the poor.
And it turns out the courts have continuously tossed voter ID laws because of the disproportionate effect on those communities. So whether you think it's a good argument or not, federal courts across the country do.
> Everyone is disenfranchised when voting rules are lax and ID is not verified.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from, but time and time again people claiming widespread voter fraud have been unable to find actual evidence of it. Multiple Republican governors over the years have put together committees to find the evidence, and although they usually find a handful of cases of people voting illegally, these are sometimes people who didn't realize they couldn't vote (e.g. convicted felons who have not gone through their state's process to regain voting rights), or people who vote someone else's ballot (frequently a recently deceased parent). A dozen people (voting for both parties, BTW, not one or the other) voting illegally should have their votes removed from the tallies, but disenfranchising millions of poor people should not be the cost of doing that.
To paraphrase you, "This is not an argument for voter IDs."
