Are Motor Voter Laws Discriminatory?

Will Truman 42 Comments

In his essays about Fox News and MSNBC, Tod was impressed by Rachel Maddow’s handling of the voting rights issue and how efforts to crack down on voting end up disenfranchising legitimate voters. I was recently reading up on the statewide candidates in my home state. Three of the four major GOP candidates for the chief elections official oppose the same-day registration that residents currently enjoy. So I was a bit curious if they would remind voters that they can same-day register and vote for them if you were so inclined. Only one mentioned it, one of the lower-rent candidates who loved the irony (“Same-day register while you still can cause I’m going to put an end to this madness!”).

My first thought was wondering if this was a case of the party acting against their own interests. I mean, the GOP gets a disproportionate percentage of its vote from the rural areas, and that’s where people might be caught up short when it comes to having remembered to register. But then I remember the motor-voter law by which I registered. So really, anyone with a driver’s license is registered. Which leaves… who? Not the minorities since it’s overwhelmingly white and… oh, Native American. So, in the end, it’s still to the GOP’s electoral advantage*. Also, some college students.

Anyhow, that got me thinking that by making it really easy for people who have driver’s licenses to get registered, without same-day registration are we discriminating against those groups less likely to drive? Of course, if so, one solution is same-day registration, but I don’t like that solution. But if we’re going to make it really easy for one group, having it harder for another does strike me as at least a little problematic. To be honest, though, I have never registered any other way, so I’m not sure how burdensome the process is for non-drivers. Unless the answer is “more burdensome than for a driver’s license,” I’m also not positive what the answer to that question means, in any event.

The state GOP’s opposition to easy voting also applies to mail ballots. That likely would benefit Republicans with the rural voters for whom driving into town to vote is a real sacrifice. The benefits for Native Americans would likely be mitigated by the notorious unreliability of the mail service in the reservations (not that the USPS doesn’t deliver, but address constancy and actually checking the mail are both issues). I’m not sure about the college students. Back when I was in college, I had to drive home to vote, but that has since changed. If it’s the case here that they can vote outside their precinct, that strikes me as easier than figuring out what to do if a mail-in ballot was sent to your home address. If not, then not.

(I’m relatively indifferent to same-day registration, but absolutely opposed to primarily mail-in voting.)

Will Truman

Will Truman is the Editor-in-Chief of Ordinary Times. He is also on Twitter.

More Posts Twitter

42 Comments

    • Interesting.

      I actually wonder to what extent it was tactically bad for Republicans. Which is not to say that they weren’t approaching it strategically (they might have gotten it strategically wrong), but if you’re giving drivers a boost, I think you’re disproportionately helping would-be Republicans. It’s possible that the marginal voter who needs the boost is more likely to veer Democratic, but I think at least part of the (“Increased turnout helps Democrats”) took a hit in 2004 because it depends, among other things, on who is turning out. The sorts of turnout boosts that benefit Democrats would come, I’d think, with a whole lot of non-drivers (students and minorities).

      • Like gregniak alludes to bellow, as a broad generalization and rule of thumb, just about anything that increases voter registration and/or voter turnout helps Democrats, and just about anything that decreases helps Republicans. There are exceptions (don’t be a Republican that says out loud, “I’m going to cut Social Security”), but it generally works. That’s why talk radio hosts for over two decades are generally against anything that increases the size and breadth of the voting population. (Neil Boortz, for instance, is quite open and straightforward about this)

        • Except, it would seem to me, motor voting helps out everybody *but* those most hard-up of voters, who won’t be showing at the DMV.l

          • It depends what the comparison is:

            Universally easy registration should help Democrats compared to motor voter, because the non-drivers will mostly vote for Democrats.

            Motor voter should help Democrats compared to making registration an effort (say, having to go to the post office or City Hall), because the more casual voters will mostly vote for Democrats.

          • It’s that latter thing I am less sure about, especially if you have filtered out the people without reliable transportation.

          • Not “reliable transportation”, but rather “driver’s license.” Got mixed up for a second, there.

    • I recall relatively well the GOP opposition to motor voter; I also have a vague recollection that one of the driving forces (no pun intended) behind it was actually MTV. At the time, the perceived intent and benefit of the law was to increase registration of younger voters of the MTV generation (and since younger voters skew heavily liberal, you get the picture). Additionally, 1993 was before the Red State/Blue State divide had fully developed; in fact, New Jersey at the time was viewed as a bellwether state, not the D stronghold it is viewed as today (I think we had gotten all but one Presidential election right since the end of the Civil War; even then, we were a hotbed of copperheadism, so the 19th century equivalent of a swing state). Given that, any benefit to the GOP of increased rural registration would have been marginal at best, and the benefit to the Dems of increased youth registration would have been potentially significant (though ultimately minimal, since the youth basically continued their longstanding practice of not actually voting).

      • I remember it being hotly opposed by the California GOP. Then when it passed, it was implemented quickly and efficiently by our Secretary of State at the time, a fellow named Bill Jones who happened to be a Republican but didn’t consider that more important than doing his job. A big contrast with some others who have held that office.

      • Heh, well I feel like an idiot. A quick search for any research done on the effect of the motor voter law lead me to discover that the law did not just cover drivers, but receivers of social assistance. So even without same-day voting, the demographics I had wondered that might be left behind were likely at least somewhat accounted for.

  2. The people most likely to be non-drivers are poor people, people who live in cities, poor people who live in cities, recent poor immigrants, old folk especially poor old folk and some handicapped people.

    • Right, so making it easier for everyone *but* those people to register has a disparate impact against those people, no?

  3. It boggles my mind that anyone can simultaneously want to make it harder to vote AND claim to be in favor of democracy.

    When I recently went to vote in the local school board elections, I didn’t have to show any ID. Their verification system involved comparing my signature against the one on file, which I had originally sent in via mail. My signature amounts to a quick scribble and the woman didn’t even really look. I was appalled. I have no doubt that there is a real potential for voter fraud. I don’t know how intense a threat it is, as it’d take a pretty big effort to make any real dent but any voter fraud is a problem in that it undermines the faith and integrity of the system.

    I have no problem with more stringent rules for voter registration and identification IF these are coupled with steps to make it easy for fully enfranchised to meet these standards. I was arguing with my mom recently that requiring a photo ID while offering no free, government-issued photo ID amounted to a poll tax (and I realize that term can consider dog whistle race baiting and I apologize for not having a better way to describe it, as I don’t think such laws are necessarily or inherently intended to target people of color). A licenses costs money. A passport costs money. Even a non-driver’s ID costs money. If these are required to vote, you just made it harder for poor folks to vote. And folks who work hourly jobs with no paid time off. And folks who live far from government service centers. Etc.

    If the government was willing to go door-to-door, thoroughly vetting all potential voters and offering appropriate registration and identification free-of-charge, I wouldn’t have an issue with more stringent standards. But until that happens, things like motor voter laws decoupled from similarly easy and accessible avenues for not motorists are indeed discriminatory.

    • I have no problem with more stringent rules for voter registration and identification IF these are coupled with steps to make it easy for fully enfranchised to meet these standards.

      As far as voter identification goes, I think this represents an extraordinary opportunity to help people get photo identification. I’m personally not all that worried about in-person voter fraud*, but I remember my time getting to know the homeless in Estacado and wondering how much helping them get identification would help them. To the extent that they are not self-destructive (and many of them are), I think the answer is “a great deal.” If we could use a voter ID requirement as a sort of mandate to help them out with that, I think that would be fantastic. The problem is that one group is big on the voter ID part, the other more interested in helping out the homeless, and I don’t see this compromise in the offing.

      My only problem with the door-to-door is that it might be seen as a creepy intrusion. I don’t see it as such, but I fear it would be portrayed as such.

      * – Mail voter fraud is a different issue. I don’t know how much of an issue it is now, but do worry about it enough that going primarily mail-in gives me the willies. It’s not the only reason I don’t like mail-in, but it’s a big one.

      • Would these efforts be free, in your vision? I agree that getting folks photo ID is undoubtedly a good thing.

        • Setting voting issues aside, a lack of money should rarely, if ever, come between somebody and proper identification. So it would either be free or means-tested (means-testing would probably cost more than free).

          I came away from the whole Estacado/homelessness thing jaded in many respects, but it did give me an appreciation of the importance of identification.

      • The only reported instances of mail fraud that I’ve heard about have been husbands filling out ballots for their wives. While undoubtedly fraudulent, that’s not the “big problem” that people double-voting is.

      • Vote by mail in Oregon has worked really well, with no evidence of fraud. A nice small-scale experiment (to reference another, more contentious, thread).

        • I’d like to see it tried in a swing state for a few cycles before I’d be comfortable with it.

          I mean, comfortable with the fraud aspect of it. Even if I become comfortable with no concerns of fraud, I still think it’s bad.

          • Oregon’s not too far off from a swing state in presidential elections, and has definitely been a swing state in Senate elections. It’s not really as blue as folks think, as it has a classic up-state/down-state split (Willamette Valley/Portland vs. Everything Else).

            I’m not sure what you think is bad about it, but honestly I haven’t seen anything bad in Oregon’s experience with it. It hasn’t really increased turnout, as people hoped it would, but a non-realized positive isn’t exactly a negative. It is less expensive to run a vote-by-mail election. And if a state’s going to inflict itself with the initiative process, it’s better for voters to be able to study the ballot at leisure, rather than feel pressed to hurry up and get out of the voting booth (and looking at a few issues now then a few later helps prevent ballot fatigue).

            Part of what’s great about Oregon’s experience was that it grew organically, rather than being a grand rational experiment. The state first reduced the requirements for an absentee ballot, so that you no longer had to swear you would be out of state on election day. So many people got repeated absentee ballots that the state then allowed permanent absentee ballot registration. They initially approved vote-by-mail for purely local elections, at each county’s discretion (with at least one live polling place to remain open), then experimented with it in a statewide election. Then a ballot initiative to establish it as the exclusive method in Oregon passed by a vote of 70% to 30%. They’ve been using it for over a decade now, and it remains overwhelmingly popular among both Democrats and Republicans.

            Washington is moving in that direction now, and according to Wikipedia, Switzerland mails all citizens their ballots, which they can return either by mail or at a polling place.

          • I will grant that Oregon is not as liberal as a lot of people think.

            As for my reasons for not liking it, I consider election day to be something of a national ritual. Individually, our votes are vanishingly unlikely to actually matter. It’s the symbolic participation in a process that is, rationally, out of your control. On election day, you are a part of something. Sending in your ballot on some random day ahead of time… not so much. There’s the process of watching the returns, but it’s not the same.

            There is a huge upside, though! And even I won’t deny that. It has nothing to do with convenience, and more to do with oppo research not dumping a bomb on election eve to influence the outcome. (Of course, on the other side, I know people who have taken advantage of early voting and had voters’ regret when a bomb did fall.)

            Fair point about the initiatives.

          • I get you. I had a friend who complained because he liked the experience of going down to the polling place. It doesn’t do anything for me, though. In San Francisco my polling place was always somebody’s garage, which didn’t exactly give me a sense of civic pride. Other places I’ve lived it’s been a local school, which was a bit awkward when there wasn’t a separate entrance to the gym, and for part of election day the kids were in their eating. Now I have to drive across town to the county fairgrounds and vote in the dairy barn (OK, it’s not really the dairy barn, it’s the the building where they have all the home improvement booths during the fair; it’s still not civically inspiring).

            Maybe it’s all of a piece with my lack of sentiment about wedding rings (in the other post). I just don’t get moved by rituals and symbols, and I get annoyed when they get in the way of just getting stuff done (don’t even get me started on that whole national anthem before we start the game business!).

          • At the very least, we could stop forcing people to be a part of something on a Tuesday. It’s an incredibly inconvenient day to expect people to drop what they’re doing and vote.

    • ” I realize that term can consider dog whistle race baiting and I apologize for not having a better way to describe it, as I don’t think such laws are necessarily or inherently intended to target people of color”

      It’s only interpretable as a poll tax if you think that nonwhite people don’t have money. And if you think that, then you’re a racist.

      • It is a poll tax in that it imposes a financial burden on those hoping to vote. It is not akin to earlier poll taxes in that I don’t believe they are necessarily or specifically targetting or impacting only people of color.

      • It’s a fee you have to pay in order to be able to vote. Isn’t that the very definition of a Poll Tax?

          • What I really don’t get is that I made a deliberate point to acknowledge the historical usage of that word, distance myself from it, and apologize for not having a better term. His criticism might have made sense had I said, “This amounts to a poll tax. See? Republicans ARE racists!” But I didn’t. I did quite the opposite. It seems he thinks that a poll tax is only a poll tax if it harms black people. Or something. In fact, I really don’t know what he was trying to say there.

          • If it was a joke and I missed it that badly, I apologize. At the risk of siphoning off what little humor might remain, can you break it down for me?

          • It was a lampoon on the way that some people insist on seeing racism in anything, even sincere attempts to not be racist. Like, “you think that poll taxes keep black people from voting? What, you’re saying black people ain’t got no money ’cause they all be poor? You racist.”

  4. A related regional anecdote:

    In Oregon we have vote-by-mail, which was pushed through in the 90s by the Republicans when they had a temporary majority; this was done over Democrat’s strong objections. They did this because their reasoning was similar to yours, and they believed it would increase GOP turnout. It turned out to have almost no impact on the GOP turnout; instead Democrats were the ones that got a slight bump.

    The state Republicans have been trying to get rid of the system “the Liberals forced onto us” ever since. The Democrats now claim to have always supported it it because of “the people.”

  5. Game Theory runs counter to voter fraud.
    It is, quite simply, easier and more cost effective to run a Get Out The Vote campaign, than to organize a systematic voter fraud endeavor — By People At The Voting Booth.

    Quite a few reasons for this:
    1) GOTV gets volunteers. Great way to meet neighbors.
    2) Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead. To actually commit voter fraud, you’d have to get X people to show up N times apiece. Make X or N too large, and some voting official notices and calls the cops. Or maybe you gotta mole, or someone who wants to be famous. Point is, for most elections, you need at least 10,000 votes one way or the other, even if the election is close. That’s an awful lot of repeat business.
    3) Running a voter fraud scam is dangerous — in a way that voter suppression hasn’t proved to be in recent years. You get caught running it, you go to jail.
    4) It’s cheaper to get people to register. Throw a pizza party at the local college.

    Now, that being said, there are a few individuals doing jail time for hacking voter machines. (source will be left uncited, please don’t ask). Because that’s a lot cheaper than getting people to show up in person, and the pols aren’t the ones doing the time.

    • How long did it take for the Florida election to be certified? (answer: so long that the Supreme Court called the game on account of time.)

  6. I can’t imagine why anyone thinks we should do anything that makes voting even slightly inconvenient. We are obsessed with the notion that some dastardly nogoodnik is going to… I don’t even know what. Cast an extra vote?

    • The main potential for an issue I see with voter fraud is if someone votes in place of another without their consent. Say I show up to vote only to find out that Kazzy already voted. Only, it wasn’t me. It was someone posing as me. That’s a problem. Potentially a big problem. Because you’ve now disenfranchised ME. And our goal should be to disenfranchise NO BODY. Now, perhaps you just say, “Alright, well, let this Kazzy vote, too. What’s an extra vote?” Probably not the worst thing in the world, but it undermines the faith in the system. So, yea, I get the need to have a bit of control in place to make sure people are voting properly. But that control should never be used to prevent folks from exercising their right to vote and, as you said, should cause as minimal inconvenience as necessary. So, if you want to require photo ID, fine by me, but make it quick, simple, and free for folks to get the minimum level of photo ID required.

      That, or just microchip everyone. Muahahahaha…

Comments are closed.