Voter ID Would Protect Voter's Rights, Not Inhibit Them

[Your Uncle Sam]

Voter ID Would Protect Voter's Rights, Not Inhibit Them

GUEST POST

WRITTEN BY

Matthew Rousu

Mr. Rousu is professor of economics at Susquehanna University in Selinsgrove, Pennsylvania.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many states are passing laws requiring voters to prove their identity by showing a photo ID when voting. This simple measure is to ensure that people aren’t misrepresenting themselves when voting. But voter ID laws are contentious and in some places, including Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, have been struck down by judges.

There are two key arguments against the voter ID requirement.

The first is that voter fraud doesn’t exist, which would mean the law has no benefits. This argument is laughable. Just ask Melowese Richardson, who was sentenced to five-years in prison for voting for Obama multiple times in Ohio. That state has been the focus of several reports of non-citizens and the deceased casting votes. In Texas, officials have pursued 66 people on charges of voter fraud since 2004. We don’t even need to discuss John F. Kennedy and Chicago.

 

Opponents of voter ID laws to prevent fraud would quickly note that less than six-dozen cases in a state as big as Texas is almost nothing. But how often could we reasonably expect somebody who votes illegally to get caught when no identification is required? Shoplifters only get caught about one in fifty times and that’s with firms who have a huge incentive to catch them. Without voter ID, does anybody really think that illegal voters would be caught more than one in a hundred times? I don’t. With 66 cases exposed, this means a conservative estimate indicates that there have been at least 6,600 cases of voter fraud in the past decade in Texas alone. That doesn’t sound so trivial anymore, does it?

The second argument is that voter ID laws inhibit the right to vote. This is also incorrect. A voter ID requirement strengthens voters’ rights by protecting the votes of all who vote legally. When voter fraud occurs, it dilutes and weakens the votes of all law-biding voters. One could make a reasonable argument that by not forcing identification and encouraging fraud, you’re violating the promise of one person, one vote. Law-abiding voters are having their votes diluted by fraudulent votes.

Showing ID when voting should be required, but that doesn’t mean proponents shouldn’t be more sympathetic to the argument that some people may not have a valid identification. The government should offer free photo identification cards to anybody who needs one.  To estimate the costs, let’s look at the state of Pennsylvania.  A rough (but high) estimate might indicate this will cost $4 million initially with $200,000 each subsequent year. As a fiscal conservative, I loathe the idea wasteful government spending government. But this is a smart investment. In Pennsylvania, over 5.5 million voters cast ballots on Election Day 2012. If we assume each vote cast took about 15 minutes and that each voter’s time is worth $16/hour, then the opportunity cost for this single election alone was over $22 million just for the voters. That doesn’t count the paid and volunteer time for those running election precincts, all of which are staffed by either paid or unpaid workers. It’s reasonable to estimate the cost to Pennsylvanians for elections exceeds $50 million annually. Spending $200,000 annually to ensure legitimate elections and protect law-biding votes is a bargain.

Opponents of voter ID claim that the law restricts voter rights and is too expensive.

They’re wrong on both counts.  Given the benefits of a voter ID law and the low cost of implementation, there are two reasonable explanations for people to oppose voter ID laws. One is ignorance. The other is the understanding that there is widespread fraud, they’re benefiting from it, and they want to keep this illegal advantage.

.

CLICK HERE

http://tpartyus2010.ning.com/profiles/blogs/3180617:BlogPost:188003

.

.