First, I see little to no burden in presenting an ID to vote in an election. We show ID for almost everything we do so why exempt voting? You can't enter a Federal Courthouse without presenting a valid ID and surrendering your phone.
Second, requiring ID adds confidence in voting in elections. You may dismiss the R's concerns in the voting in 2020 but the concerns were real and actually discouraged hundreds of thousands of citizens to not vote in the Senate run off the election in January 2021. Isn't the goal to encourage more, not less, people to vote? Georgia's new voting laws helped re establish confidence in voting in elections - the law has received almost universal praise in the State.
Third, deterrence. Requiring a valid ID will discourage any individuals or groups even thinking about committing voter fraud.
I'm not for making people jump through meaningless hoops just for the fun of it, but I don't think requiring an ID to vote falls into that category.
I guess this qualifies as a thoughtful response from you, so thank you. I still have questions:
1. What do you mean, "the concerns were real"? Sure, they were real, but they were completely unfounded. So is that how we should be making policy? It's the government's job to protect people from threats that don't actually exist? This is the goal?
2. What about concerns among minorities and liberals that polling place voting requirements are going to be used for disenfranchisement? I mean, those concerns are both real and founded, given that many of the people most affected by these requirements literally grew up and reached adulthood in an era when they were not allowed to vote because of poll taxes, literacy tests, and so forth.
But let's say those concerns are outdated, and today are not founded. If we're making policy to protect people from non-existent threats, then how do you resolve this dispute? One group says, without foundation, that there's voting fraud. One group says the anti-fraud measures are disenfranchising. What principle do you suggest to sort this out, other than just a preference for white people?
3. People who didn't vote because they thought the election was rigged were stupid. That was a bad decision. I don't care about that at all.
4. You've spoken negatively about preclearance. I find that hard to reconcile with your current stance, since one of the points of preclearance was to establish confidence in the elections. The Voting Rights Act said, basically, "the DOJ is always on the case and will protect you from disenfranchising shenanigans, so the elections are not actually rigged." So if you want people to be confident in elections, you would favor preclearance. Is there any actual reason you don't, other than a preference for white people?
5. You didn't answer my question about deterrence so I will pose it again: how much should we invest in deterring non-threats? Should the school have spent $100 to put a button lock to prevent someone from stealing a 1000 pound, $1500 machine? Should we also have anti-alligator patrols in the sewers, to make sure that they don't get out and start chomping people in downtown Manhattan.
At what point is deterrence overkill, and even harmful because of its side effects? Are there any other non-problems you'd like to focus on? Why isn't the deterrence that we already have enough?
And as long as we are into deterrence, let's game this out. Homicide is illegal, but that's clearly not enough deterrence because still have homicides. What if we imposed a prophylactic measure to add additional deterrence? You know, like gun control. Is there any reason you are hostile to deterrence in one area but not the other, except for a preference for white people?
www.whitehouse.gov
