Jack Crawford’s letter, “Explaining the Voter ID Objections,” makes a fair point: No eligible citizen should be prevented from voting simply because obtaining identification is difficult. I agree with that concern.
Where I disagree is with the idea that voter ID is unnecessary.
Mr. Crawford cites the lack of proven, widespread voter fraud as a reason not to require identification. But many safeguards exist to prevent problems before they become widespread, not only after the damage is already done. We require identification for many far less important things in everyday life. Voting is more important than buying alcohol, boarding a plane, cashing a check, or entering certain government buildings. I do not see why proving who you are before voting should be treated as an unreasonable burden.
The concern about people without ID should be addressed directly. Make voter identification free. Make it easy to obtain. Help elderly, disabled, low-income and homebound voters get it. Provide reasonable provisional ballot and cure procedures so an eligible voter is not wrongly turned away.
But that is different from saying identification should not be required at all.
Mr. Crawford also seems to place a lot of confidence in signature verification, especially with mail-in ballots. I think that confidence is overstated. A signature is not the same as identification. Signatures change over time. People sign differently for various reasons: age, illness, injury, haste, or even the surface on which they are writing. Signature matching also depends on someone making a judgment after the ballot has been submitted.
That does not mean every mail ballot is suspicious. It simply means that signature verification is a weaker safeguard than having a voter prove who they are with valid identification.
There is another issue with relying on recounts. A recount usually recounts ballots that have already been accepted. It does not necessarily answer the more basic question of whether the correct voter cast every accepted ballot. Once a ballot is accepted and separated from its envelope, that question becomes much harder to revisit.
It is also inaccurate to act as if every other democracy conducts voting the same way we do. Some countries allow voting without showing ID at the polls, but many others require voters to prove identity in some way. The point is not that every country has the same rule. The point is voter identification is not some extreme or unusual idea.
Citizenship includes rights, but it also includes basic responsibilities. We expect voters to register, keep their address current, meet deadlines, sign ballots properly and follow election rules. Providing reasonable proof of identity should fit within that same expectation, especially if the ID is free and accessible.
The goal should not be to choose between making voting accessible and protecting the vote. We should do both. Every eligible citizen should be able to vote, and every voter should be required to prove their identity.
That does not seem unnecessary to me. It seems like common sense.
Arthur Tom
Santa Clarita
