3 views on whether US states should require voter ID

Voter ID laws enacted recently in several states have taken center stage this election cycle. Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson ruled Tuesday that the state could not implement its new voter ID law until after this year's November elections. As the fifth installment of our One Minute Debate series for election 2012, three writers give their brief take on whether US states should require voter ID.

3. A middle way: National voter ID card would restore trust, reduce costs in a fair way.

America needs to move toward a more rational way of administering elections – and beyond the stale debate in which Republicans complain about voter fraud and Democrats yell about voter suppression.

The primary kind of voter fraud that state ID laws could prevent – impersonation voter fraud – is rare and does not seem to have affected an election outcome in at least a generation. And Democrats exaggerate the number of people likely disenfranchised by state ID requirements.

This partisan fight over fraud versus suppression plays out not just among voters, but in the very way elections are run: Controversial rules like voter ID laws are enacted in most places on party-line votes in state legislatures. Further, state and county election rules are often administered by partisan elected officials (often without adequate training or resources). Partisanship and decentralization raise the risk of unfair and uneven treatment of voters.  

We need a national solution. For federal elections, a nonpartisan US agency should register every eligible voter to vote and provide each one with a photographic identification card to be used for voting anywhere in the United States

It would be up to the federal government to pay for the documentation, such as birth certificates, needed to verify identity. Voters would have the option to provide their thumbprint with the ID card, which could be used instead of the card at the polling place, or if the card is lost. When a person fills out a change of address card at the post office, voter registration would move automatically.

This solves a lot of problems: It minimizes voter registration fraud. It also eliminates the high costs for parties to register voters and for states and local government to maintain voter rolls and check for fraud. It prevents double voting across state lines. National registration and identification tackles fears of fraud and suppression in a fair, rational way.

Richard Hasen is a professor at the School of Law at the University of California, Irvine. He is the author of “The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown.”

3 of 3

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.