AJR 17 - Voter Photo ID

AJR 17 states the following:

To create section 1m of article III of the constitution; relating to: requiring a photographic identification to vote, or register to vote, at the polls on election day (second consideration).

The Legislative Reference Bureau states the following:

EXPLANATION OF PROPOSAL: This proposed constitutional amendment, to be given second consideration by the 2007 legislature for submittal to the voters in November 2008, was first considered by the 2005 legislature in 2005 Assembly Joint Resolution 36, which became 2005 Enrolled Joint Resolution 39.

It provides a qualified elector may not vote, or register to vote, at the polls on election day unless the elector presents a photographic identification issued by this state or by the federal government. After the date of ratification, the legislature, bylaw, with the concurrence of two−thirds of all the members present, may exempt any class of electors from these requirements.

Thank you to Tony Palmeri for linking several informative resources on the effects of voter identification requirements. See the post here. Most interesting from the New York Times article that Palmeri linked was the following:

"States that imposed identification requirements on voters reduced turnout at the polls in the 2004 presidential election by about 3 percent, and by two to three times as much for minorities, new research suggests."

The Capital Times enters a voice of opposition to the Voter Photo ID proposal here, in which Dave Zwiefel writes that:

"...in states where voters were required to sign their names or show an identifying document, blacks were 5.7 percent less likely to vote than in states where voters simply had to say their names. For Hispanics, the impact was closer to 10 percent. Those figures compared to a 2.7 percent combined rate for all races. And that, of course, is exactly what's behind initiatives in several states, including Wisconsin, to change existing laws to make it tougher for folks to vote in an election."

According to this site from Morwitz College of Law in Ohio:

"The exclusionary effect of some ID laws arises from the fact that a significant number of citizens don't have government-issued photo ID. Previous research suggests that some groups of voters -- including people of color, poor voters, and elderly voters -- are likely to be disproportionately affected, since they're less likely to have driver's licenses."

The Republican Party has the following to say about Voter Photo ID:

“The photo ID requirement is vital to the integrity of our elections in Wisconsin,” said Brad Courtney, Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. “From healthcare and social security reform to homeland security, Americans face important issues today and voters deserve to know their elected officials got
there fairly.”

In searching for the justification of this inevitable reduction of citizens participating in the democratic process, I found this and this from the Wisconsin Republican Party in 2005:

At least 278 felons illegally voted (and) 100 cases have been found of people voting twice or using fake names and addresses.

and

"an ongoing federal-local investigation into the Milwaukee 2004 elections found hundreds of felon and double voters and thousands more ballots cast than voters recorded as having voted in the city. Yesterday, RPW handed the results of their own investigation over to federal authorities that show highly suspect cases of people voting twice--once in Milwaukee and once in the city to which they filed a change of address"

To view the Milwaukee voter fraud issue - click here for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Archive. What stands out is that many of these claims are invalid, that the issues have nothing to do with a photo ID, and that a photo ID would not prevent these issues.

I did come across an interesting review of Voter Registration in the state of Wisconsin by the Legislative Audit Bureau


Conclusion: The requirement of a government-issued photo identification to participate in the right to vote would clearly be detrimental to our democracy. The benefits of such a requirement have not been articulated well by the supporting party, while the negative effects that this bill has on the effects of voter participation have begun to be clearly documented. Our representatives in favor of a strong democracy should not support this bill. We will see what is more important to our representatives: a democracy which enables Wisconsin citizens to participate, or partisan pressure.

I will email the representatives and allow them an opportunity to explain their positions. They will likely (hopefully) be able to better articulate the pros and cons of this proposal.