Voter Fraud: A Brief Philosophical View

Democratic elections, that is, ones that proceed by way of the vote, imply winners and losers. The more importance that voters place on their choice’s victory, the more difficult it is for them to accept their choice’s defeat, if or when it occurs. The undeniable rudeness and conflict that characterizes our political sphere bears witness to the breakdown of a consensus that once existed in the background of American politics. There was a general sense of respect for the other side, conditioned by the sense that, at the end of the day, we were all Americans that want the same things. In 2008, John McCain famously responded to a woman claiming she could not ‘trust Obama’ by saying, “he’s a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is all about.” Such respect among opposed politicians today is rare, but the distrust among voters on the opposing sides has only been exacerbated. As this divide deepens, each side’s voters increasingly believe that their side’s victory is a matter of life and death. I believe it is from this tension that the anxiety and urgency surrounding voter fraud emerges.

In 2015, Columbia Law Review published Michael Gilbert’s gloss over voter ID laws. As he points out, America has had issues with election integrity from the time of its origin. Some examples Gilbert provides are:

George Washington bought votes with liquor, and Boss Tweed paid “repeaters” to cast four ballots apiece in New York. Miami’s 1997 mayoral race included hundreds of ballots cast by “vote brokers.” American politics has long featured another malfeasance: vote depression. For decades, intimidation and poll taxes kept African Americans from the polls. In 2012, Republican-controlled Ohio tried to grant military voters–and essentially no one else– extra time to vote.

This brief picture of history makes it clear that concerns over the integrity of U.S elections are reasonable enough. However, Gilbert’s essay draws attention to some of the limits placed on our thinking about those issues by the urgency with which they are discussed and the focus on one policy proposal: the mandate that voters present valid ID when voting.

Critics of voter ID laws liken them to Jim Crow era poll taxes, serving as a financial barrier to voting. The Brenan Center reported in 2012 that, “the 11 percent of eligible voters who lack the required photo ID must travel to a designated government office to obtain one. Yet many citizens will have trouble making this trip.” The conclusion being that voter ID laws reduce voter turnout.

As it stands, federal law requires those registering to vote to present a valid ID during that process. Following the registration process, ID is not required to cast a vote. However, depending on the state you live in, you may already be required to provide a photo ID to cast a vote–Indiana being a prime example.

Gilbert asks us to stop and think for a moment about whether such a policy proposal would yield the outcome we are looking for or not. He writes:

By reducing fraud, depressing turnout by lawful voters, or simultaneously doing both, voter ID laws can have many effects, including this: They can exacerbate fraud. To illustrate, suppose that without a voter ID law candidates A and B would receive 13 and 10 lawful votes, respectively, and B would receive 2 fraudulent votes. Candidate A wins, 13 to 12, and the outcome is nonfraudulent. Now suppose that with a voter ID law, candidates A and B would get 9 and 9 lawful votes, respectively (less than before because of depressed turnout), and B would get 1 fraudulent vote (less than before because of fraud deterrence). Candidate B wins fraudulently, 10 to 9. The voter ID law caused the problem it was meant to solve.

Gilbert’s thought experiment points out that voter ID laws, should they have the consequence of reducing voter turnout, will generate a higher likelihood of fraud influencing an election in the first place. This thought experiment does not exhaust the field of possibilities. However, the very possibility that voter ID laws could cause what they intend to combat should give us pause. Rather than acting quickly and responding sensationally, we should take a step back and analyze the problem. Many times, the way that a problem is stated contributes to the problem itself. Patience and thinking are needed more than ever to offer new avenues and new ways to communicate about the things that seem to divide us the most.

By Yanis Ait Kaci Azzou, Library Assistant

Sources:

THE PROBLEM OF VOTER FRAUD, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 739 – This essay can be read on Westlaw using the library’s subscription.

52 USC 21083

Indiana Voter Photo ID Law