Question on Voter ID in the US

[DetlefK]

Disclaimer: I'm a foreigner (Germany)

Is there a general national form of ID in the US? From what I have heard, the most common ID in use is the driver's license.

For example: I got my Personalausweis (personal ID) when I turned 18, it was issued by the city-council and with the same process they turned me into a registered voter. (All I needed was a birth-certificate and proof of my recent address.)
The Personalausweis contains several serial- and code-numbers, photo, name, height, sex, eye-colour and date of birth on the front-side and the recent address on the backside.
If you move to another city, you should (but don't have to) register at their city-council. You get a special sticker on your ID with your new address and your name gets transfered to their voter-registry.
About a month ahead of an election you get a personalized notification-card by mail, when and where you (specifically) can vote. This card also serves as a proof that you are eligible to vote.



Why doesn't the US have a national ID (apart from passport) or an automatic voter-registration of all adults?
Is it cultural or political reasons?

[polichick]

1. I'd say both cultural and political...

There are people on both the right and left who are against a national ID - and Republican leaders in particular use that reticence to whip up fear and paranoia.

[femmocrat]

2. Yes, one's signature.

Any other form of required ID is considered to be voter suppression. The republicans (in some states) are trying to implement crazy voter ID laws to suppress the vote of the poor, elderly, and minorities. Those groups traditionally vote for democrats.

A person's signature used to be all that was required to cast a ballot, if one is registered, of age, and a resident of that precinct. The signature is equivalent to signing an affidavit that you are who you say you are at the polling place.

I can't offer any documentation, but Americans have generally rejected a "national ID". I think it smacks of having to "show your papers" which seems foreign to us.

[The Magistrate]

3. It's All About The Freedumb, Sir

Why, if the gub'mint gave you an ID, next thing they be coming to take yer guns! You know, they put chips in those things that'd tell 'em where you were and what you were doin' all the time, just like in Soviet Russia! Are you some kinda commie? Not me --- i love my freedumbs!

[femmocrat]

5. Are you saying there should be a national ID?

???

[The Magistrate]

8. I Think, Ma'am, A Lot Of Opposition To It Is Not Rational

Having come of age in Cold War days, I can feel still a bit of visceral tug myself from the propaganda of the times, which presented the 'internal passport' of Russia as a leading emblem of tyranny which would never be tolerated here. But I see nothing particularly objectionable to a Federally issued identification; we do have Social Security cards and passports, for example. In terms of voting, I certainly support national standards, including automatic registration at eighteen, and a national voter registration card would put out of play many of the local shenanigans aimed at culling and shaping the electorate to privilege one party we see going on today.

[marions ghost]

12. totally agree

--if it were a federally issued card then it would end all of the "voter registration" nonsense, which is used to limit numbers of voters.
(Meanwhile we have the NSA collecting everything. But people think they're protecting their freedoms).

The problem right now is that the voter ID being pushed at the state level is being used to disenfranchise voters in time for the next elections. Some people will not qualify depending on state laws. It is being used to discourage voters and you only have to look at North Carolina to see how the push for "voter ID" is being used to cover other suppression tactics that passed with it.

This is not really the same as what Germany has, where the federal card ensures your right to vote from the age of 18. I would be OK with that.

[Lee-Lee]

4. There is by default

All states issue drivers licenses and ID cards that follow the same format for non-drivers. And the Federal government sets specific standards for what is acceptable for ID features and documentation.

So essentially, yes. Just managed by the states, but to minimum federal standards.

[DetlefK]

6. If there's a federal standard, why the state-quarrel with IDs?

Why are IDs that meet federal standards not good enough for federal elections?

[Lee-Lee]

7. They are

The issue is requiring any ID at all.

Until now I was able to walk in, say who I was, sign my name ad vote.

Now in NC I will have to show ID to prove who I am. I have 3 different IDs they listed as acceptable, but some people have none. How they have made it trough life with no ID I have no clue, but if they have more power to them.

The rethugs claim people walk in and give somebody else's name and vote multiple times. While it would be possible, even easy, I haven't heard of cases of it actually happening.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. The Real ID Act was enacted in 2005

as a first attempt to move in that direction, and to this day, this law continues to generate much controversy (most states understandably have not or refuse to comply).

http://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/

The one thing that distingushes the U.S. from other countries is the Constitution, which spells out what is do-able at the federal level and the rest is left to the states (10th amendment).

Ironically, there have been 4 amendments passed over the years explicitly dealing with voting, including forbidding discrimination based on race, gender, and age (18 & older permitted), and forbidding a cost ("poll tax&quot . This latter issue is what has been triggering the lawsuits now due to the new photo ID requirements that in many cases, have required a cost to obtain (where in the past, many polling sites only required proof of residency in the polling district, which could include a utility bill, etc.).

[Igel]

10. The Real ID Act was contested by many here.

And generally left of center. And a few extreme right folk, too.

The left-of-center objection--with New Mexico pitching a massive fit--centered on it being as good as a birth certificate. Driver's licenses/state IDs come in two flavors--those with regular expiration dates, but buttressed with proof of citizenship so that they are themselves proof of citizenship. And those underpinned by a visa, with the expiration of the visa being the expiration date of the ID.

Who's left out? Immigrants that are undocumented because nobody wants to legitimize their presence by issuing them ID that is equal to that of legitimate residents. They're forced to commit a crime--forge their ID--or go without ID. New Mexico frowned on this.

Some Texas issuing sites have an innovate way around the requirement. They simply fail to ask for the birth certificate or proof of citizenship and check the box saying they saw the documents. I've only ever seen Latinos do it for Latinos, however. White illegal immigrants aren't common in my neck of the woods, and black illegal immigrants are even rarer.

Now, you may ask how I know they failed to check documentation properly. When asked if they wanted to register to vote, the answer has been in Spanish that the clerk knows they're here illegally, so no. Usually with a laugh. I imagine some have said "yes."

[Igel]

11. Historical-political reasons.

Elections in the US are all at the state or local level. There are no true national elections. Senators/Representatives are elected by the states to represent the states. The President is elected by "electors", which are voted on in each state and are to represent that state's voting results.


There's no Constitutional authority for a state ID. IDs are issued by the states as a courtesy to those who ask for them and aren't required by law. Passports are authoritative, but their main purpose is to get you through the national border, controlled by the central government. Otherwise, IDs are typically program specific. If you drive, you get a driver's license. This kind of ID has been around for many generations.

If you are in the Social Security program, you get an ID for that program--but that number was specifically, by law, prohibited from being used as a national ID number. That didn't stop private organizations from using it that way. University's used to use the SS # for ID purposes, but that was ruled illegal. The Social Security program was originally an opt-in program. I had bosses that weren't in Social Security; I know a lot of people who have never paid into Social Security. They have SS #s only because they double as taxpayer identification numbers. Only in the last 15 years or so has it become required to assign SS #s to every child born, but that's because the IRS started to require we provide SS #s to confirm that the dependents we claim really exist. Before that I could claim 1 child or 5 and there'd be no way for the government to say otherwise. It's a sign of distrust.

SS # as national ID has been creeping along since it was put in place, and every time somebody tries for a national ID states defend their authority. Otherwise there'd be a huge central government and smaller, fairly inconsequential state and local governments. Some like centralization--they figure they'd have the power and obviously use it for good. Many don't like it. Until somebody in a show of mutual respect rams it down their throats we'll have decentralized identification systems.

It's not really that bad, though. Most states accept every other state's DL and ID as valid, and simpy swap them if you move.