Arizona's Voter ID Law May Go Too Far
---
I've blogged previously about my support for a controversial voter ID law in Georgia that is being challenged (so far successfully) in federal court. My thesis is straightforward: it is not about "making every vote count," but rather making every valid vote count.
Arizona, meanwhile, facing what many consider an illegal immigration crisis, has gone a step further by not only requiring ID at the polls, but also requiring proof of citizenship during the voter registration process.
While I certainly acknowledge the problems illegal immigration can have on a state, I wonder whether this measure goes too far.
Sometimes it can be quite hard for a native-born American to actually prove his citizenship (naturalized citizens of course have their naturalization papers). Other than a passport, no single document definitively demonstrates nationality except for a birth certificate, and they often do not reflect name changes; in some cases they're not even available (and are easily forged anyway).
From a cost-benefit perspective, it seems as though requiring proof of citizenship is too high a price to pay for the benefit of weeding out the fraudulent votes of illegal immigrants.
I would make a counteroffer: Simply replace the proof-of-citizenship requirement with a proof-of-identity requirement, but with a clear mandate to double-check the information provided at voter registration against other government records (e.g., tax rolls) to help identify illegal aliens in the first place. If illegal aliens know that attempting to fraudulently register to vote could risk their being caught and deported, I suspect very few would even try. Same desired effect with much less complication or controversy.
Regardless of one's particular viewpoint about our current immigration policy, or our approach to the problem of illegal immigration, all should be able to agree that it is simply despicable for an illegal alien (or anyone else, for that matter) to attempt to register to vote fraudulently. And there is consequently nothing wrong with trying to stop it. But making fraudulent voting risky, rather than difficult, can achieve prevention far more easily, and is therefore the preferable policy.
Arizona, meanwhile, facing what many consider an illegal immigration crisis, has gone a step further by not only requiring ID at the polls, but also requiring proof of citizenship during the voter registration process.
While I certainly acknowledge the problems illegal immigration can have on a state, I wonder whether this measure goes too far.
Sometimes it can be quite hard for a native-born American to actually prove his citizenship (naturalized citizens of course have their naturalization papers). Other than a passport, no single document definitively demonstrates nationality except for a birth certificate, and they often do not reflect name changes; in some cases they're not even available (and are easily forged anyway).
From a cost-benefit perspective, it seems as though requiring proof of citizenship is too high a price to pay for the benefit of weeding out the fraudulent votes of illegal immigrants.
I would make a counteroffer: Simply replace the proof-of-citizenship requirement with a proof-of-identity requirement, but with a clear mandate to double-check the information provided at voter registration against other government records (e.g., tax rolls) to help identify illegal aliens in the first place. If illegal aliens know that attempting to fraudulently register to vote could risk their being caught and deported, I suspect very few would even try. Same desired effect with much less complication or controversy.
Regardless of one's particular viewpoint about our current immigration policy, or our approach to the problem of illegal immigration, all should be able to agree that it is simply despicable for an illegal alien (or anyone else, for that matter) to attempt to register to vote fraudulently. And there is consequently nothing wrong with trying to stop it. But making fraudulent voting risky, rather than difficult, can achieve prevention far more easily, and is therefore the preferable policy.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
6 November 2005
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
