Background on Photo ID Provision in S. 565
PENDING SENATE ELECTION REFORM LEGISLATION: Photo ID Provision Must Be Fixed
February 25, 2002
Background on the Dodd/McConnell Substitute Amendment to S. 565
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CN) introduced S. 565 - The Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2001. In order to obtain Republican support for election reform, Senator Dodd began negotiations with Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Christopher Bond (R-MO). Ultimately, Senator Dodd submitted a substitute amendment to S. 565, which was cosponsored by Senators McConnell, Bond, Charles Schumer (D-NY), Robert Torricelli (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Richard Durbin (D-IL). Cong. Rec. S. 13764-13771. The bill was brought to the Senate floor on February 13, 14, and 15. It will return to the Senate floor on February 25, 2002.
The Problematic Provision in the Substitute Amendment: Photo ID Provision (Sec. 103(b))
In order to fight alleged fraud, the Substitute Amendment's Section 103(b) creates new requirements for voters who register to vote in a jurisdiction by mail if the individual has not previously voted in an election for Federal office in that jurisdiction. Under Section 103(b), if the voter (after registering by mail) goes to vote in person at the poll, he/she must present the following at the polling place:
- a current and valid photo ID; or
- a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, Government check, paycheck, or other Government document that shows the name and address of the voter.
If a person registers by mail and then chooses to vote by mail subsequently, he/she must submit with the ballot a copy of one of the above documents.
If a person who registers by mail cannot present one of the above documents, then he/she can cast a provisional vote. The problem with this option is that it is unclear how the election officials would then determine if the voter is eligible. A likely outcome is that the person would cast a provisional vote and it would never be counted.
Section 103(b) with its photo ID requirement will have a discriminatory impact on minority voters. The Department of Justice and the federal courts have both objected to the use of photo ID requirements without sufficient alternatives for minority voters because of the discriminatory impact. When provisions such as these disproportionately burden minority voters, the Voting Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973, is violated.
The Solution: Vote for the Wyden-Schumer Amendment That Would Allow for Attestation and Signature Verification as Alternatives
In addition to requiring either a photo ID or the documents listed in Section 103(b), the bill should also allow states to verify voters who register by mail through either an attestation or through their signature which can be used to match against a signature on file with the state or local election official. Thirty-eight states already collect signatures from voters at the polls. It would be easier administratively for these states to be able to use these signatures as part of an anti-fraud mechanism as many already do. Civil rights groups and election officials support adding alternatives that would remedy the current photo ID provision. Providing for attestation or signature collection would remove the discriminatory impact of the current provision. The Election Center's Joint Election Officials Liaison Committee is already on record as supporting an alternative mechanism to the photo ID provision through a signature verification system. The Secretaries of State of Wisconsin, Georgia, Kentucky, and New Mexico have all weighed in already formally opposing the photo ID provision in the bill.
