In response to this post, a longtime ELB reader writes:
- I think it’s silly to believe that either end of this fight are motivated by actual concerns of ballot fraud, either to prevent it, or enable it to be perpetrated. While I suppose it’s possible the occasional election is close enough that somebody voting in person under false pretenses might swing the result, doesn’t everybody understand that absentee ballots are where the rubber really hits the road, fraud-wise?
Rather, what’s going on with the Democratic opposition to voter ID is that the Democratic party is reliant on some groups which are extremely poorly motivated to vote. Even the most trivial
> inconvenience can, accordingly, impact Democratic turnout. While Republicans are, relatively speaking, strongly motivated to turn out; If they don’t show, it’s more likely to be because the party hasn’t provided them with a candidate worth voting for, than because voting is a bit inconvenient.
But, of course, we don’t typically demand that the actual motives of legislators be sparklingly clean, just that their laws could hypothetically be justified by some savory motive. (Or else we’d be striking down laws left and right.) And the inconvenience in question really IS quite trivial. At least compared to restricting the availability of absentee ballots to people who can show genuine need, which probably would have a major impact on ballot fraud… Making it a two-fer as far as Republicans are concerned.
I’m having a hard time figuring out why the GOP doesn’t go for that measure, unless maybe it’s just that they figure it’s a hill too far, given the way Democrats would go berserk if it were proposed…
Interesting thoughts, though my sense is that both Democrats and Republicans both see Republicans as benefitting much more from absentee voting than Democrats.