The SCOTUS disagrees with you. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 17/01/2012 06:35:37 AM
I don't see why a majority of people wouldn't have some form of photo ID anyways. I suppose there are people who would vote that now won't because they're going to have to spend the time to go get a photo ID, but I don't know how sizable that portion of people is anyways. Most people I've met that are that apathetic about voting are likely to not go if their voting center is too far away. Frankly, I'm not sure I even care about the vote of someone who cares that little. It's unlikely they're going to make an educated and thought out decision anyways. Don't get me wrong, they should still be ALLOWED to vote and no one should take that from them....I'm just not too fussed about the loss of their opinion.
I don't know any nation-wide statistics, but there was a study done in Texas that showed that one million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters did not have photo ID. If you extrapolated that nation-wide (this is rough mental math), you'd have about 20 million registered voters without photo ID in the United States. That's a lot of voters.
And yes, maybe you don't really care what they think if they're too lazy to go get photo ID, and I don't think you'd be alone in that line of thought, but it's still true that this portion of the population is under-represented partially as a result of such laws. So the question is, do you want your government to be fully representative of the interests of all its citizens, or only of the ones who have the time and energy and drive to be involved?
I'm not even American, so I can't answer that question. But it seems a little iffy to me when laws like this are passed by people who know damn well what the results will be ... and by complete coincidence, such laws are usually supported by the party that poor people vote for less often, and opposed by the party that poor people vote for more often. I personally feel that effort should be made to give everyone the best chance at voting, but I definitely acknowledge that a compelling argument can be made the other way, in the vein that you're talking about.
In the 6-3 ruling for the state of IN that found voter ID laws constitutional, the majority explicitly said they knew it only passed because some legislators knew it would give their party an advantage, but that it did not matter because the states other listed justifications for the law were neutral. Basically, they recognized the Trojan Horse as such, then proceeded to wave it through the city gate.
All that said, requiring a photo ID would reduce the risk and probably the reality of voter fraud, so as long as it is free I support it. Most places already required photo ID of people who did not have the voter registration cards mailed out free of charge months before the election, but allowed those who had the card to vote without producing ID. Anyone so inclined could simply find out when the cards would be mailed out, swipe them from mailboxes, and vote as many times as they chose. Worse, since the only provision against fraud was basically just poll workers checking their rolls to verify people were registered in that district, then having them sign next to their name, each of the people whose cards were stolen would find, when they arrived at the polls, that they "already voted" and therefore could not cast a ballot.
Ultimately, it is not unreasonable to make voting incumbent on proving a person is who they claim to be, provided it it not a poll tax.