I think you missed an important aspect, of coming to agreement on nationally standard ID cards. One point is that within the NRA community they fight any improvement in federal ID cards, because they are convinced that they will be used in the process of keeping data on who buys and owns guns, and will be used to take away their guns. The other group is Libertarians, and the libertarians in the GOP that don't want the federal government snooping on them.
It took decades of negotiation, standardization, and implementation, to come to the Federal standards for state drivers licenses. It is daunting to think of starting from scratch, instead we should build from the expansion of the license to people who don't drive. My understanding is that readers in any police car, can read any license and verify it.
I am sure people would be spooked by a reader on each voting machine, but one on the table where you check in should be OK. Whether this would have stopped the several Trump voters, who were caught later, and prosecuted for voting in person in one state and absentee in several others, I don't know. It was encouraging that there is enough state to state cooperation to catch these people.
I was talking to a New York based customs agent, about my losing my GOES card, because it needed renewal, when Trump suspended the renewal or issuance of new GOES cards in New York, as a penalty. The agent defended it, saying New York would give one to anybody who walked in and Trump did the right thing. I suspect there will be lingering distrust, that while their state is doing the right things, other states are cheating in some way. I doubt that national standards on who and the process states would use to issue them would ever get through congress.
I suggested two alternative ways to provide IDs for voting for people who don’t drive. The first is to provide a picture on a card that all of us already have — the Social Security card — and only to do that for people who need/want it for voting purposes. No one would be forced to have a picture version of the Social Security card.
There are some practical problems in implementing such an optional version of the Social Security card. So, the other proposal was to piggyback on top of the state ID cards that all states have for people who don’t drive. These already exist and they conform to federal requirements for the REAL ID. The proposal is simply to provide federal funding to people who need it for getting such a state ID card.
So, neither of the approaches I suggest in the article involve creating a new federal ID.
Personally, I think that a uniform federal ID could be helpful in many ways without increasing privacy or other risks. But, as you said, it ain’t gonna happen, at least not anytime soon.
Your analysis and possible solutions to voter registration needs a side by side chart to study the possibilities and make sense of creative solutions and costs. I find the gerrymandering issue to be even more worrisome. The ACLU has been actively litigating in Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and other southern states.
I agree that a side-by-side chart would have been helpful.
I also agree that gerrymandering is more worrisome — gerrymandering is an extremely powerful force in determining who represents us. In my state, NC, voters vote for Republicans and Democrats almost 50-50. But the two houses of our state legislature and our Congressional representatives are strongly tilted Republican, all a result of gerrymandering. The next issue of the newsletter will discuss a win-win approach to controlling gerrymandering.
I lean left on many issues, but I have never had a problem with the idea of voter ID. I think Lee has come up with some reasonable and affordable solutions. In NC, I believe you can get a non-driver's license ID for $10 at the DMV. In addition to SS cards, many people have Medicare cards, insurance cards (for health, prescription, car), passports, professional licenses (e.g., there are more than 100,000 real estate brokers in NC) and other forms of ID. If these forms of identification could be issued in a "smart" format that would be difficult to counterfeit, couldn't they be used for voting as well?
All states that currently have voter ID accept most kinds of government-issued photo IDs. Some accept photo IDs from universities and employers. The problem is that the one card that everyone must have to exist in our society is one that doesn't have a photo.
I’m more in favor of a government issued photo I’d, without the social security number on it. There is too much ss number stealing to risk showing it at polling places. The US Government should initiate a program. Putting it in the hands of the states introduces race bias into the issuing
I, too, would like to see a secure and private national photo id to replace our crazy quilt current system -- how many times have you heard "give me the last 4 of your social security, your birthdate, your driver's license number, and your mother's maiden name". A national photo ID could be implemented using the same sort of technology that contactless credit cards use so that merchants don't actually get their customers' credit card numbers. (There are now some credit cards that no longer have account numbers either printed on the card or available via mag stripe.) I believe that companies and governments can already invade our privacy in the same ways that people have been concerned about with a national ID.
Unfortunately, creating a national photo ID would be a huge undertaking. And given that the federal government has for at least 15 years been forcing state governments to improve their driver's licenses and state ID cards via REAL ID, I doubt that pushing for a national ID card could get any traction. Effectively, REAL ID is going to give us a de facto but fragmented national photo id system.
There are processes for establishing a person's identity through the internet. The IRS has an ID.me service where your ID is established by submitting two picture IDs (in my case a driver's license and a passport) online followed by a zoom session with a trusted referee. There are variations on this process for establishing an applicants identity.
It also seems that your win-win solution assumes that the Republican interest is genuinely based on suppressing fraudulent voting. Since there is little evidence of fraudulent voting, why are the Republicans are still actively and broadly pursuing voter IDs. It suggests their true motive is suppression of voters likely to vote for Democratic candidates.
Yes, once one has an ID, establishing another one is not hard. So, the IRS ID.me service requires that you "provide a photo of an identity document such as a driver's license, state ID, or passport." If you already had a driver's license, state ID, or a passport, you wouldn't be worrying about an ID for voting because you'd already have one.
But could there be a suitably secure online way to apply for a state ID card for someone who just has a social security card and maybe some bills to show? That would be very interesting.
Your second paragraph raises an important point, which others have also raised to me (privately). I have several thoughts:
(1) in the same way that you and I believe that Republicans are pursuing voter IDs (together with other measures) to suppress votes, particularly votes that might likely be cast for Democratic candidates, some (many?) Republicans believe that Democrats are encouraging people who are not eligible to vote to go to the polls. If we're going to have any hope of achieving win-win solutions and making progress, we need to hear the viewpoints of the other side.
(2) Still, there is a big problem if the person/party with whom you're negotiating doesn't have integrity. If they say "I'm worried about fraud" but what they really think is "I don't think Black people (or poor people or non-Christians, or whatever) should be able to vote but I can't say that out loud", then, of course, coming to an acceptable win-win is very hard or maybe impossible.
What gives me some hope is that there can be a gap between what the politicians believe and what their constituents believe based on what they are being told by those very politicians. So, are there many Republican voters who take their leaders at face value, that is, that believe there's a voter impersonation fraud problem, or do all Republican voters hear "voter fraud" and immediately translate that to "keep those other people from voting"? I don't know the answer, but I'm hoping that there are a significant number of them who take their leaders at face value.
And maybe there's even a similar gap between what the party leaders are saying and what other party members are saying. If, for example, there were ten Republican Senators who would believe in a win-win like I discussed in this issue, a measure like this could pass.
(3) I don't believe in magic. But one of the difficulties we face now is that there is an incredible amount of distrust in our current political climate. The way to overcome distrust is to build it over time by taking small steps together. As small steps work, then perhaps you can build enough trust to take slightly larger steps.
This is all incredibly difficult. But I don't think we should give up quite yet.
I think you missed an important aspect, of coming to agreement on nationally standard ID cards. One point is that within the NRA community they fight any improvement in federal ID cards, because they are convinced that they will be used in the process of keeping data on who buys and owns guns, and will be used to take away their guns. The other group is Libertarians, and the libertarians in the GOP that don't want the federal government snooping on them.
It took decades of negotiation, standardization, and implementation, to come to the Federal standards for state drivers licenses. It is daunting to think of starting from scratch, instead we should build from the expansion of the license to people who don't drive. My understanding is that readers in any police car, can read any license and verify it.
I am sure people would be spooked by a reader on each voting machine, but one on the table where you check in should be OK. Whether this would have stopped the several Trump voters, who were caught later, and prosecuted for voting in person in one state and absentee in several others, I don't know. It was encouraging that there is enough state to state cooperation to catch these people.
I was talking to a New York based customs agent, about my losing my GOES card, because it needed renewal, when Trump suspended the renewal or issuance of new GOES cards in New York, as a penalty. The agent defended it, saying New York would give one to anybody who walked in and Trump did the right thing. I suspect there will be lingering distrust, that while their state is doing the right things, other states are cheating in some way. I doubt that national standards on who and the process states would use to issue them would ever get through congress.
Bill
Thanks for your comments Bill.
I suggested two alternative ways to provide IDs for voting for people who don’t drive. The first is to provide a picture on a card that all of us already have — the Social Security card — and only to do that for people who need/want it for voting purposes. No one would be forced to have a picture version of the Social Security card.
There are some practical problems in implementing such an optional version of the Social Security card. So, the other proposal was to piggyback on top of the state ID cards that all states have for people who don’t drive. These already exist and they conform to federal requirements for the REAL ID. The proposal is simply to provide federal funding to people who need it for getting such a state ID card.
So, neither of the approaches I suggest in the article involve creating a new federal ID.
Personally, I think that a uniform federal ID could be helpful in many ways without increasing privacy or other risks. But, as you said, it ain’t gonna happen, at least not anytime soon.
Your analysis and possible solutions to voter registration needs a side by side chart to study the possibilities and make sense of creative solutions and costs. I find the gerrymandering issue to be even more worrisome. The ACLU has been actively litigating in Ohio, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia and other southern states.
I agree that a side-by-side chart would have been helpful.
I also agree that gerrymandering is more worrisome — gerrymandering is an extremely powerful force in determining who represents us. In my state, NC, voters vote for Republicans and Democrats almost 50-50. But the two houses of our state legislature and our Congressional representatives are strongly tilted Republican, all a result of gerrymandering. The next issue of the newsletter will discuss a win-win approach to controlling gerrymandering.
I lean left on many issues, but I have never had a problem with the idea of voter ID. I think Lee has come up with some reasonable and affordable solutions. In NC, I believe you can get a non-driver's license ID for $10 at the DMV. In addition to SS cards, many people have Medicare cards, insurance cards (for health, prescription, car), passports, professional licenses (e.g., there are more than 100,000 real estate brokers in NC) and other forms of ID. If these forms of identification could be issued in a "smart" format that would be difficult to counterfeit, couldn't they be used for voting as well?
All states that currently have voter ID accept most kinds of government-issued photo IDs. Some accept photo IDs from universities and employers. The problem is that the one card that everyone must have to exist in our society is one that doesn't have a photo.
I’m more in favor of a government issued photo I’d, without the social security number on it. There is too much ss number stealing to risk showing it at polling places. The US Government should initiate a program. Putting it in the hands of the states introduces race bias into the issuing
I, too, would like to see a secure and private national photo id to replace our crazy quilt current system -- how many times have you heard "give me the last 4 of your social security, your birthdate, your driver's license number, and your mother's maiden name". A national photo ID could be implemented using the same sort of technology that contactless credit cards use so that merchants don't actually get their customers' credit card numbers. (There are now some credit cards that no longer have account numbers either printed on the card or available via mag stripe.) I believe that companies and governments can already invade our privacy in the same ways that people have been concerned about with a national ID.
Unfortunately, creating a national photo ID would be a huge undertaking. And given that the federal government has for at least 15 years been forcing state governments to improve their driver's licenses and state ID cards via REAL ID, I doubt that pushing for a national ID card could get any traction. Effectively, REAL ID is going to give us a de facto but fragmented national photo id system.
There are processes for establishing a person's identity through the internet. The IRS has an ID.me service where your ID is established by submitting two picture IDs (in my case a driver's license and a passport) online followed by a zoom session with a trusted referee. There are variations on this process for establishing an applicants identity.
It also seems that your win-win solution assumes that the Republican interest is genuinely based on suppressing fraudulent voting. Since there is little evidence of fraudulent voting, why are the Republicans are still actively and broadly pursuing voter IDs. It suggests their true motive is suppression of voters likely to vote for Democratic candidates.
Yes, once one has an ID, establishing another one is not hard. So, the IRS ID.me service requires that you "provide a photo of an identity document such as a driver's license, state ID, or passport." If you already had a driver's license, state ID, or a passport, you wouldn't be worrying about an ID for voting because you'd already have one.
But could there be a suitably secure online way to apply for a state ID card for someone who just has a social security card and maybe some bills to show? That would be very interesting.
Your second paragraph raises an important point, which others have also raised to me (privately). I have several thoughts:
(1) in the same way that you and I believe that Republicans are pursuing voter IDs (together with other measures) to suppress votes, particularly votes that might likely be cast for Democratic candidates, some (many?) Republicans believe that Democrats are encouraging people who are not eligible to vote to go to the polls. If we're going to have any hope of achieving win-win solutions and making progress, we need to hear the viewpoints of the other side.
(2) Still, there is a big problem if the person/party with whom you're negotiating doesn't have integrity. If they say "I'm worried about fraud" but what they really think is "I don't think Black people (or poor people or non-Christians, or whatever) should be able to vote but I can't say that out loud", then, of course, coming to an acceptable win-win is very hard or maybe impossible.
What gives me some hope is that there can be a gap between what the politicians believe and what their constituents believe based on what they are being told by those very politicians. So, are there many Republican voters who take their leaders at face value, that is, that believe there's a voter impersonation fraud problem, or do all Republican voters hear "voter fraud" and immediately translate that to "keep those other people from voting"? I don't know the answer, but I'm hoping that there are a significant number of them who take their leaders at face value.
And maybe there's even a similar gap between what the party leaders are saying and what other party members are saying. If, for example, there were ten Republican Senators who would believe in a win-win like I discussed in this issue, a measure like this could pass.
(3) I don't believe in magic. But one of the difficulties we face now is that there is an incredible amount of distrust in our current political climate. The way to overcome distrust is to build it over time by taking small steps together. As small steps work, then perhaps you can build enough trust to take slightly larger steps.
This is all incredibly difficult. But I don't think we should give up quite yet.