Hacker News Reader

Comment by PaulDavisThe1st | Hacker News Reader

Because there is no mandated form of ID in the USA (and it was fought against for decades by conservatives claiming it represented unwarranted overreach by the state).

As a result, actually obtaining some form of ID that might be acceptable (the forms vary mostly depending on the political party that writes the rules) can present a significant challenge to some voters, and for some of us, that is an anathema (the right to vote being sacred, certainly compared with the right to drive for example).

Introduced a national ID that the government is OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE for every person, and many of the arguments against it would go away. Currently, no state in the US, nor the federal government, has such a form of ID.

View on HN

Voting is a state concern. It doesn't matter that there is no Federal standard. Every state that has Voter ID will have some form of acceptable ID card that you can get, even if you don't drive.

I said "government" and mentioned both state and federal. The point is that there is no ID required in any state. Voter ID cards are not the obligation of the government to provide - voters much take the steps to procure them. The right to vote precedes and predates such a requirement - if the state wants to impose it, that's fine but it should come with the obligation upon the state government to provide the ID, not a requirement to procure it.

And getting that will cost money, often requires traveling non-trivial distances (note the demographics of the areas where state offices are opened or closed, and viability of public transit), and requires proof of residency / identity which can be hard for some people to satisfy (there are plenty of people who’ve hit issues about things like maiden names, being able to prove continuous proof of residence when they e.g. weren’t on a lease or other legal document, etc.).

I still think ID is good but it really needs to be paired with a robust improvement in making the system of getting ID work better. If we’re requiring it, the government should be required to provide it for free and meet a legal standard of proof for denial.

Elections are local not national, so why would you need a national ID? You can use a State ID for a local election, and each election can have their own requirements about it, matching whatever the local ID in use there is.

There is no mandated form of ID in any state. How can you require people to have something to vote that is not required for any other purpose, at least if the government is not required to provide it?

Isn't that effectively the same argument though? In practice states provide ID's to everyone who can prove residency. Forcing states to grant ID's to everyone who asks for it is the same as forcing them to allow anyone to vote without ID's, just with an extra step.

You don't "force states to grant IDs to everyone who asks for it". You force states to issue IDs to all legal voters. States do not "provide IDs" to anyone - you are required to fill out paperwork, potentially travel and more.

In nations that do in fact have a national ID, everyone gets one, with little or no effort (certainly no need to travel), and if you wanted to mark the card "non-voting" that wouldn't be a big step.

Your right to vote is established by the US Constitution. A state can't burden that right. If a state wants to add an ID requirement, that's fine, but getting the ID must present no burden to any voter.

In reality, the conundrum here is entirely of conservatives' own making. On the one hand, they (non-exclusively) are adamantly against automatically issued national or even state IDs. On the other, they want to require ID for voting (ascribe whatever reason to this you want). You can't fulfill both these desires without violating the constitutional right to vote.

The standard is no undue burden. That does not cover minor hassles like paperwork. Unless you're claiming it's some kind of language issue.

If you live without a vehicle in a rural corner of your state, compelling you to travel to somewhere else in order to get a state-sanctioned ID is, IMO, an undue burden.

If you are required to have documents and paperwork for a voter ID that you are not otherwise required to have, that is, IMO, an undue burden.

I have no problem with the state saying "you must have this document in order to vote" (it even makes a limited amount of sense, despite being a solution in search of a problem). I do have a problem with the state doing anything other than ensuring that every resident who should that document gets it with minimal effort (preferably zero).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com