Government Technology

More Voter ID Laws Enacted in the South



Who Are You?

May 21, 2012 By

The Republican governors of Virginia and Mississippi are the latest to sign legislation making sure voters show proper identification before they cast their ballots, a trend that has the Obama re-election campaign ramping up its efforts to make sure voters know of the new requirements.

In Mississippi, Governor Phil Bryant late last week signed into law a state constitutional amendment requiring voters to show  photo ID that Mississippi voters approved by 62 percent in the 2011 general election. The measure also allows people without proper photo identification to apply for a free voter ID at the office of the county circuit clerk. “We want everyone to participate in the election process, and we want that process to be fair and secure,” the governor said in a statement.

Virginia already required voters to have valid ID, but has never required a photo ID and that doesn’t change now. Legislation that Governor Robert F. McDonnell signed on Friday does change voting procedures in two ways. Under previous law, those who didn’t have identification could sign a special document vowing they were who they said they were.

That is no longer an option under the new legislation. Instead, when someone votes without presenting identification, they can vote with a provisional ballot but must later present an approved ID to their local registrar through email, fax, mail or hand delivery.

Secondly, Virginia expanded the kinds of documents accepted as ID. Now, the following are acceptable forms of ID for voting: Virginia voter registration card; Social Security card; valid Virginia driver's license; any other identification card issued by an agency of the Commonwealth, one of its political subdivisions, or the United States; any valid student identification card issued by a Virginia institution of higher education; a valid identification card issued by an employer containing a photograph of the voter; a copy of a current utility bill or bank statement; a government check; and a paycheck that shows the name and address of the voter.

At the same time, McDonnell issued an executive order directing the State Board of Elections to send every Virginia voter a voter card, a valid form of ID under state law, before Election Day, so that every registered Virginia voter has a valid ID to present at the polls. "Every qualified citizen has the right to cast one vote. Not two votes; not zero votes. It is our duty as a democracy to ensure that is always the case,” McDonnell said in a statement.

Supporters of voter ID laws echo McDonnell and Bryant’s sentiment that such measures are needed to combat voter fraud, but opponents say the laws are unnecessary and deliberately try to dissuade the poor and minorities from voting. Some 25 percent of black voters do not have a valid government-issued photo ID, according to a report from the Brennan Center for Justice.

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the president’s re-election campaign on Friday  launched a national drive to counter laws such as these and others that limit early voting.

Virginia and Mississippi are among more than a dozen states, most in the South, that have a history of discrimination and are required to seek federal approval before they make changes to their election procedures. A federal appeals court on Friday said Congress acted properly in 2006 when it reauthorized the law. The ruling likely sets the stage for an expected showdown over the civil rights law at the U.S Supreme Court, the Christian Science Monitor reported.

South Carolina and Texas, two other states that require such approval, also have new strict photo ID laws that could take effect before November 2012, if they receive clearance, according to this state-by-state analysis from the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law was held unconstitutional in March, but it could take effect before November 2012 if that ruling is reversed by a higher court, NCSL said. And earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against Pennsylvania's new photo ID law.

Article courtesy of Stateline.org. Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Center on the States that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy.


| More

Comments

Travis    |    Commented May 22, 2012

The most effective way of limiting voter fraud is to require an official ID. Without showing ID, anyone can walk into any precinct and pose as someone else in order to vote multiple times. Perhaps that is what the current administration wants.

Chris 54    |    Commented May 22, 2012

A solution looking for a problem. (Good fake ID's are a dime a dozen, and it's not like in the 2 seconds that they look at them, that they could conclude anything) Anyone with half a brain would know that the easiest way to taint a election is via the voting machines.

summitite    |    Commented May 22, 2012

Tampering with the machines is more complicated. In the 2008 election, more people cast votes in Philadelphia than local election officials thought were actually registered and there have been numerous reports since of people being bussed in from NJ and DE to vote there. Voter fraud is real. Asking fir ID won't solve all the problems, but it will cut back on the most common type of fraud.

JOHN    |    Commented May 22, 2012

Everyone should be required to ink thier thumb when they vote, just like overseas. That will stop the ballot stuffing!!!!

Don    |    Commented May 22, 2012

Yes, a valid ID should be presented. It should be a picture ID such as a drivers license. In CA, drivers licenses have become much harder to alter or re-produce a phony. Keep voter fraud to a minimum!

John    |    Commented May 22, 2012

I agree that this is a solution in search of a problem at the current time. But eventually we will need a method for determining who someone is before we can count their vote because we will not be voting so inefficiently. I agree that the current motivation is to suppress certain voting groups, but there is a legitimate need to have a mechanism to count one and only one vote per person in real time. The current protection is to mark the list at the polling place and not allow a second vote to be cast under that name. So if voter fraud were actually at any significant scale, it would require knowing who is registered but not going to vote that day, or the person would have to produce forged documents to register at the polls which is allowed in some states. I support a long term migration to a system that provides easier voting, such as in the home via computer, but also requires a better identification process as well. We can address concerns of targeting certain groups by phasing it in over time and delivering benefits to voter turn out at the same time we constrain votes from people unwilling or unable to get their act together enough to have a photo id or other credential prior to voting.


Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. We reserve the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

In Our Library

White Papers | Exclusives Reports | Webinar Archives | Best Practices and Case Studies
Improving Emergency Response with Digital Communications
Saginaw County, Mich., increases interoperability, communication and collaboration with a digital voice and data network, as well as modern computer-aided dispatch.
Reduce Talk Time in Your Support Center by 40%
As the amount of information available to citizens and employees grows each year, so do customer expectations for efficient service. Contextual Knowledge makes information easy to find, dropping resolution times and skyrocketing satisfaction.
Emerging Technology Adoption in Local Government
In a recent survey conducted by Government Technology, 125 local government leaders shared their challenges, benefits and priorities when adopting emerging technologies such as cloud, mobility and IP. Read how your jurisdiction’s adoption of technology compares to your peers.
View All

Featured Papers