On the face of it, it doesn't seem unreasonable. Only US citizens can legally vote, and after registration, there are few checks on the voting procedure.
Indiana, and a few other states have voting registration laws that require proof of identity. However, the Indiana law has been challenged and the Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal.
So what's the big deal? Why are people challenging these laws? Why don't most states already require proof of identity when voting? Why are we having this discussion?
First of all, there's very little evidence of voting fraud, as the NYT piece points out. There is certainly concern about fraud, but there doesn't seem to be much out there.
Second, who will be affected by this law? Who doesn't have government-issued ID cards? The urban poor, for one. People who don't drive and don't fly. The economically disadvantaged tend to vote Democrat. So some people argue that the ID requirement could effectively disenfranchise some portion of this group of people.
Is it all a conspiracy then by partisan Republicans to play on fears of immigration and disenfranchise a voiceless group of people? Or is there something more substantial at stake?
So are there any civil liberties that we should be concerned about?
If the government (federal or state) is in the business of establishing identity, do we lose anything? Do we gain anything?
Driver's licenses are only part of how our identity and relationship to the state is established. What about birth certificates? Marriage certificates? Death certificates?
What about our social security number? When are we required to provide that number? Well, when we pay taxes, for one. When we fill out almost any health care form, for another.
Birth, marriage, travel, death, employment, taxes....all moments when we interact with the state. We live in a regulated world. What's one more regulation, one more control? Who would it harm?
We try to regulate certain things--health insurance, unemployment, welfare--to ensure that those who belong here receive these services. Or we try to. There seems to be a general agreement that public education cannot be restricted to legal residents of this state. But welfare is becoming more and more restricted, more and more localised. Control of a mobile population can only occur when the givers know who the receivers are.
"Do you belong here?" demands an answer that perhaps, will be answered in the future with the production of a stamped paper signifying our identity.
Inspired by this opinion piece by Adam Liptek: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/us/24bar.html?ex=1191384000&en=9776ee1a13c547cd&ei=5070&emc=eta1
3 comments:
More on identity and the state in today's NYT:
U.S. Sues Illinois to Let Employers Use Immigrant Databases
My opinion is that; Yes, we should have National Identity Cards issued at birth. Any system which is inclusive must by nature also be exclusive. We are given the right to be citizens if we are born on American soil. We need to earn the continuation of that right. Those that are naturalized earned the right up front, so to speak. We need to be able to Identify those that meet the obligations and earn the rights of citizenship, and distinguish between them and those who have not.
However. That identification should be an "identification" only! It should not be a method of tracking financial information, place of residence, birth origin, or any other information. In other words, that form of ID should be such that it connects to the person to whom it is issued, and should form no other connection.
Probably hard to implement, but possible I think.
Why this approach? Because I think any other corrupts by inversion the idea of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. An identity card that extends to any other purpose than to identify is a threat to me. (Yes, I am paranoid) :-)
>>Any system which is inclusive must by nature also be exclusive.<<
wjw, this is the key issue in ANY discussion about citizenship and rights, immigration and naturalization.
If a state is legitimized by the sovereignty of the people, many argue that there must a discrete definition of "the people", requiring boundaries. For there to be insiders, there must be outsiders.
When I was working on my dissertation, it took me about three years to articulate this concept, as well as examine the arguements surrounding the issue in 19th century Britain.
You did it in one night.
Post a Comment