The State Board of Elections has come up with a short list of fairly straightforward rules governing how the new voter ID law will be implemented, which is reassuring. However, as some residents at a public hearing Friday pointed out there may still be too much leeway for poll workers in determining resemblance to the photo presented.
Under the new rules, factors such as weight, hairstyle and color, eyewear (or not), facial hair (or not), tattoos, makeup and complexion, among other things, are not to be considered. Pole judges present must unanimously agree before a voter can be turned away for not looking enough like his or her photo. At that point, the person would still be allowed to cast a provisional ballot that may or may not eventually be counted.
A voter whose photo is deemed sufficient will have the opportunity to update his or her name and address. People move, and women in particular often change their names. A speaker at Friday’s public hearing pointed out without such accommodations, the law has the potential to be particularly unfair to women.
It is important officials make the process as understandable and painless as possible, and to err on the side of accommodating voters. Unlike driving, flying or opening a checking account — which voter ID supporters frequently cite as comparable examples — voting is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a privilege. The law should require a very high burden of proof to deny anyone the right to participate in elections.
Voting rights advocates are justifiably concerned the law could suppress turnout, particularly among the poor, minorities, students and the elderly. The list of sanctioned IDs is telling: Official driver’s licenses and state identification cards from motor vehicle offices are acceptable, as are military IDs. But official student photo ID cards and government employee identification cards are not.
It will be harder for many people to obtain the proper photo IDs if they cannot readily produce a birth certificate. If they were born in North Carolina, they can get one for free, but anyone born in another state will pay whatever fees are charged there, in addition to having to navigate the logistics of obtaining one. Changes to voting precincts around the state also have been a cause for concern.
But protests about the unfairness of the law have not, to date, had any impact on the General Assembly’s position. Unless the U.S. Supreme Court overturns North Carolina’s voting restrictions, anyone wishing to cast a ballot in 2016 will be required to present a photo ID.
That means it is important for groups that promote high voter turnout to do whatever is possible to help residents of low-income and minority communities get the identification they need. Voter drives on campus also can help remind students that they must register to vote here if they plan to cast ballots here. The Supreme Court has upheld the right of students to vote where they spend the majority of their year.
And if state officials are truthful that their intention was not to suppress voter turnout, they should prove it by doing as much as possible to inform residents and to help them obtain the proper identification. Here’s one idea: Bring registration and photo ID to the people.
With some coordination between voting advocacy groups and the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles, officials could visit communities where residents may have difficulty finding transportation to crowded DMV offices. A similar program could be set up at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and Cape Fear Community College.
Frequent reminders of the requirement and how to fulfill it, along with photo sessions scheduled near where people live, would promote widespread participation even as voting restrictions go into effect. Elections board-sponsored ID clinics could help people obtain the documentation they need.
Training for poll workers is also critical to avoid racial and class biases, as well as arbitrary rulings. Resemblance, in particular, is subjective. (That’s one reason the courts have noted that eyewitness testimony is often unreliable.) People change their appearances, their hairstyles and don or cast off eyeglasses as necessary. They age, even in the few years between required updates for driver’s licenses.
Sponsors of the new voting restrictions in North Carolina insist they are intended to ensure the integrity of our elections. But turning away eligible voters is an unacceptable violation of an inalienable right.
If these laws take effect, the burden of proof must remain on election officials, not the voter.
