If one has checked the “About Us” section of this website the links I am pasting below will not be surprising.  What may be surprising is my take on this issue as a whole.  Anyway here are the links, my thoughts are below:

1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/03/how-voter-id-laws-are-being-used-to-disenfranchise-minorities-and-the-poor/254572/

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/behind-the-brewing-voter-id-war/2012/03/19/gIQAkyLXNS_blog.html

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/vas-new-voter-id-law-expected-to-face-less-opposition-from-doj-than-others/2012/03/13/gIQAhpyPES_story.html

While I agree with the Democrats/liberals position on voter disenfranchisement due to a lack of identification as a problem, I do not entirely agree with how they approach the issue.  In my view the mistake the Democrats make is placing their focus on laws that require voters to present identification in order to vote.  Placing debates over voter fraud compared to disenfranchisement aside for a second, I ask you to consider whether or not it is unreasonable to ask for identification when a voter goes to the polls.

The request itself is not unreasonable, it is a simple request to establish you are of age to vote, are registered to vote, and attempting to vote in the correct district.  It is somewhat similar to being “carded” when buying alcohol or cigarettes.  What is unreasonable, actually beyond unreasonable, is how difficult it is for some voters to obtain a form of identification (see the first article from The Atlantic for some examples). When it comes to this issue, Democrats would be better served to support the passage of bills that increase the types of identification accepted at the polls (see the third article above about the voter ID law in Virginia, acceptable IDs include utility bills and bank statements) and bills that simply make it easier to obtain proper identification.

On Voter ID Laws Impact

I will add that, as a social psychologist, I am not a denier of a concept like implicit prejudice and institutional discrimination.  I unequivocally consider the coupling of these voter ID laws with other laws that make it more difficult to obtain proper identification, such as opening a DMV for limited hours or simply closing it down altogether (and thus requiring the individual to seek out the next closest one) as nefarious.  Proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that such behavior constitutes prejudice and institutional discrimination however is difficult.  Tossing such accusations out may always help in this situation as it is possible they turn off moderate voters who do not find the request for identification ridiculous in any way.