Election Fraud: Does it Exist? is Photo ID the Answer?

When you last voted, were you confident that your vote counted as much as every other person's in your community? When you watched the reports from Florida in 2000, and waited for the results from Ohio in 2004, did you feel good about our election process? We've all read stories about over-zealous, last-minute voter registration pushes, false addresses, felons illegally voting, double voting and absentee ballot abuses. As an election official in my community, I have first-hand knowledge of the process and can see many areas of vulnerability. Following the last two Presidential elections, the system has been heavily scrutinized, and old jokes like, "Vote early, vote often" just don't seem as funny anymore. Are these problems real, and if they are, what can be done to prevent them while maintaining full access to the process for all citizens?

There have been times in our nation's past when elections have come under question, where influence-peddling has cast a shadow, where voter intimidation has occurred, or minor allegations of fraud have surfaced (think Chicago in 1960). These problems have never been proven to be widespread enough to question an election, and we have always tried to fix the problems as they were identified. As Americans, we feel a sacred bond to our right-to-vote and many of us would never allow anyone to keep us from exercising it.

On the flip side, most of us would also never think of abusing that right by committing fraud, which is what has kept our elections substantially clean. However, as government influence has grown in our society, some people now have an almost desperate stake in the outcome of elections. I believe more and more of these people are willing to cross the line to make sure their side wins. The system, which has always been based largely on personal integrity and honor, is not currently up to this type of challenge.

One of the biggest problems in determining whether vote fraud occurs is in the inherent secrecy of the process in the first place. We have placed a higher value on secrecy than we have on stopping abuse, and there are not sufficient checks and balances in the current system. In a local case, for example, a candidate for state senate was proven to have double-voted in the 2000 election, once in Wisconsin and once in Chicago, where he had another residence. In this case, if it hadn't involved a high-profile person, which therefore attracted the investigative resources of the press, would anyone have known?

No identification numbers had ever been associated with voting and the local clerks only communicated if a voter filled out a formal change form, listing their previous address. People could easily have been on multiple poll lists and no one at a higher level cross-checked lists for double-voting; the resources simply didn't exist. In addition, since poll workers did not confirm identities of registered voters, there was no way to say for certain who actual voted - it was the honor system.

Voter fraud only comes to light if someone directly challenges a voter at the poll, which almost never happens, or if someone makes a complaint to authorities after the fact. In the latter case, an investigation may occur, but without hard documentation, due to the secrecy of the process, prosecution is difficult to impossible. We record that a person came to the poll, announced his name as "Jim Smith" and gave his address, and was given a ballot; there is no surveillance camera there (obviously), and without a photo ID requirement, we can't even say for sure that it was "Jim Smith" that voted.

A recent Federal report demonstrates this difficulty - it suggested three methods to "gauge" this type of identity fraud: One was analyzing investigations and prosecutions (which are rare because it's hard to charge a unidentified person); another was random surveying of those who were recorded as voting (which again relies on honesty); the third is to compare recent death rolls (an easy target for fraud) with those recorded as voting. The only one of these that provides concrete facts would be the "dead voting", but again, there is no one to prosecute - how would you find the person who actually voted that ballot?

The Federal "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA), passed in 2002, required the States to create a "single, uniform, official centralized, interactive computerized statewide voter registration list defined, maintained, and administered at the State level," containing registration information and a unique identifier for every registered voter in the state. This is the first serious attempt to clean up the registration list problem and can be used to verify addresses, check for criminal records and potentially identify voter fraud across state lines, as in the case cited above. The state database, however, is still quite useless if the end user, the election worker at the poll, is not allowed to verify the voter's identity with a photo ID. It would still be possible to step up and "announce" yourself as someone else if you had that information.

Here in Wisconsin, the "do-gooders" in state government have identified, in recent years, numerous societal problems that they thought could best be solved by requiring people to present a photo ID. These "problems" range from purchasing cold medicine at the drugstore (to prevent quantity buying for use in methamphetamine labs) to the latest, a City of Madison requirement for the sale of used textbooks at the university bookstore (to prevent thieves from cashing-in stolen books). However, the one area where the liberal politicians have steadfastly opposed photo ID is in the battle over a law requiring it to be shown at the polls before voting.

Prior to HAVA, almost any one piece of ID or other document with your name on it was accepted for registration. Now, to register to vote, you are required to provide proof of two key things. First, your personal identity: This usually involves some type of government-issued ID card, presumably rooted somewhere in the past, to your birth certificate. Included in this step is a requirement that you state, under oath, that you are an eligible voter; that you are a U.S. citizen, that you are eighteen years of age, that you are not a felon, etc.

Secondly, your place of residence: This could be covered by the government-issued ID card, or may involve the presentation of another document with an address that presumably only a valid resident would have, such as a lease, a utility bill, a pay stub, etc. In Wisconsin, your driver's license number (or last four digits of Social Security number if no license exists) is the identifier collected for the statewide database. Note though, that the lawmakers specifically prohibited poll workers from requiring the voter to show the photo...again circumventing true identification at the polls.

Other changes, which further complicate matters, are in the regulations governing voter registration itself and in handling of absentee ballots. With the laudable goal of increasing voter participation, we have allowed later and later registration, to the point where many states (including Wisconsin) allow it to be done at the polls on Election Day. Many partisan groups have taken to the streets to register as many people as they can, even paying people by the signature, resulting in invented names and non-existent addresses.

Registration fraud has not yet been documented to result in illegal votes, but it could (especially without the photo ID requirement). And again, how could you find and prosecute the person who actually voted? The number of people using absentee voting has been rapidly increasing. This is where most of the suspicion of fraud has been centered because the ballots are often sent out in the mail and are, by definition, outside the purview of election officials until returned.

The main argument put forth by the opposition is that requiring a photo ID amounts to voter intimidation and suppression, especially in lower income and minority areas. The evidence cited for this claim is a general decline in voter turnout whenever more stringent requirements are enacted at the polls. It is assumed that poor and minority voters are less likely to have a proper and accurate photo ID and that they would be less likely to make the effort to get one, or get it updated, for the purpose of voting. They further assume that even if one were offered to them at no cost, strictly for the purpose of voter identification, it would still amount to an unreasonable impediment.

These arguments strike me as another example of the "soft bigotry of low expectations. Even though nearly all of us already posses the required photo ID, and have been required to present it for all sorts of reasons in our daily lives, it is simply assumed that certain groups of people will not be able to comply. The proponents of this measure have tried to answer every concern with a solution, to eliminate all arguments and excuses, but the liberals are still against the requirement. In my mind, it gives credence to those who say that the opponents must be benefiting from the fraud, or they would not be resisting so fervently.

Many people argue that we need to make it as easy as possible to vote and gauge success by voter turnout. I would argue that a successful election is one where every eligible voter, who desires to exercise his right-to-vote, is able to cast one ballot quickly and easily. Anyone who is too lazy, or doesn't feel strongly enough about the issues or candidates to make the effort, is not missed in the overall process. People no longer have to travel long distances, pay poll taxes, or face intimidation or undue requirements (i.e., property ownership requirements or literacy tests) in order to vote. Providing proof of identity should be the minimum we expect.

When I saw people proudly displaying their purple fingers after voting in Afghanistan and Iraq, I was struck by the simple genius of the idea. Although they were also attempting to create valid voter lists and lay the groundwork for future elections, this simple, yet effective idea completely solved the "one person-one vote" dilemma. Here in America, we have invested billions of dollars in computer systems and equipment and spend countless hours of public servant's time each year trying to maintain accurate voter lists...when a small quantity of indelible ink in each polling place would insure against double voting more than anything else. Or, of course, since we've already come this far, we could just get out the photo ID cards that