There are three reasons why a voter might have to produce identification at the polling place.

One, first time voters who register using a mail-in form must present one ID on election day in some cases. Two, inactive voters must present ID in most cases. Three, voters whose qualification to vote has been challenged by an election judge might have to present identification. This might result from information provided by a pollwatcher, the examination of the voter’s signature, or information from the election judge.

Here are the rules regarding first time voters.

In Illinois, prior to the passage of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993, an individual who wanted to register to vote had to appear in person before a deputy registrar and present two IDS, at least one with a current address. Under NVRA, individuals no longer needed to present ID when they registered and could merely fill out a form on their own, even mailing it in. Over the course of the next decade, people came to realize that this process left some openings for fraud. In some states, people had openly created false registrations just to demonstrate the lack of safeguards in the system.

In response to this, Congress included in the 2002 Help America To Vote Act (HAVA) a provision that first time voters who register through the mail must present some identification, either at the time of registration or at the polling place on election day. When NVRA references a registration “by mail”, it refers to registrations that use the mail-in form but arrive at the election official’s office either by mail, from a third party, or by the individual in person. HAVA was a bipartisan piece of legislation which passed the House of Representatives 357-48 and passed the Senate 92-2.

Unfortunately, the State of Illinois has not yet complied with these provisions in HAVA because they have not yet created a “uniform and nondiscriminatory manner” to require identification from first time voters. Until this happens, we are left with somewhat different interpretations of how this law is to be implemented. In February, 2004 we sought guidance from the State Board of Elections. The legal counsel for the board said that identification presented on election day should have the current address of the voter on it in order to meet the requirements of HAVA. For the March 2004 primary, and the November 2004 general election, we used this guidance in implementing our rules for requiring identification for first time voters.

The identification provisions in HAVA can be met prior to election day in the following ways. A person can submit a copy of their driver’s license or other valid photo ID or a copy of a bank statement or utility bill or government document (for example a document from the University) that shows the name and address of the voter. The requirement can also be met if the person gives their driver’s license number to the election authority who is able to match that driver’s license number, as well as date of birth and name, to the database of driver’s licenses of the Secretary of State.

On election day, similar requirements are in place.

In the November 2004 election, some people questioned the procedures we had in place. The Cook County Clerk was using slightly different requirements for identification. Some people suggested that an address was not required on the identification. Some suggested that if the address on an identification was incorrect, then the ID was not valid. The new general counsel for the State Board of Elections, who had taken the place of the attorney who had advised us in February 2004 had a different opinion.

I was presented at approximately 11:00 a.m on election day with the idea of changing the identification requirements we had established. I decided not to for a number of reasons. First, while the State Board of Elections had not implemented uniform and nondiscriminatory requirements for identification, I had developed those requirements for Champaign County. To change those rules in the middle of election day would clearly have discriminated against the 50% of the voters who had voted by noon that day. Implementing this throughout the 117 precincts in Champaign County would have been impossible to do in a nondiscriminatory way. We had mailed an instructional postcard to each voter who would be subject to those provisions. Once again, changing the rules in the middle of election day would have been discriminatory to those who had voted under the old rules.

It was also striking to me that these rules were open and obvious and were implemented without complaint in March and were part of election judge training in October. No one registered a complaint at that time nor did a single voter out of the 8,000 who were required to present ID register a complaint when they received the postcard from our office.

It is also noteworthy that our office worked to minimize the number of people who had to present ID at the polling place. The Secretary of State’s office were given the name, driver’s license number, and birth date of thousands of our registered voters. Their technology department then cross checked it with their driver’s license database and thus we were able to eliminate thousands of people from the requirement of presenting ID on election day. We were one of just three counties in the state (DuPage and Cook as well) who took advantage of this excellent service made available by the Secretary of State. (It is noteworthy that Champaign County probably has the highest percentage of mail-in registrations.)

Voters may also have to provide identification if they are on the list of inactive voters. Inactive voters are those voters who fail to respond to two non-forwardable mailings and thus we are unable to ascertain that they still live at the address on their registration card. Occasionally, these voters actually do live at the address in question, but for some reason our mailings to them were returned. If they can present valid ID that proves they still live at the address at which they registered they can vote a full ballot.

Voters may also be asked to show ID at the request of the election judge. This can happen because the voter has had their residency challenged by either an election judge, voter, or poll watcher. Sometimes, the signature on the registration does not match that of the voter in which case the election judge may request ID. Election judges should not require identification without some good reason.

Elections require integrity above all other things. While we want to minimize inconveniences, I think that everyone wants to put the integrity of the election at the forefront. The identification requirements in the state and federal statutes seem very reasonable.

Update:
The rules above are taught to all election judges and are included in the election judge manual which is given to all election judges. Of course, election judges serving in a precinct with a higher percentage of first time voters (for example on campus) would be required to ask for ID more times than someone working in a small rural town with little turnover. I do not recall receiving complaints in the past about people being required to show ID in circumstances other than the one above.

I visit polling places on election day and I see a significant percentage of voters who take their ID out and show it to the election judges without ever being asked for it. Some of these voters may have voted in states that require it. Others might be under the impression that it is required in our county. Some election judges will tell the voter that they don’t need to show the ID. Other election judges look at the ID as a means of identifying the person and they let the other election judges know who has presented themselves so that the voting process can start. When election judges look at the ID it might give the impression to the voter that it was required. While I haven’t heard of election judges requiring ID of every person since I’ve been County Clerk, I can’t say that someone might not have done that. However, it would have been contrary to what they were taught in training.

We take disparate treatment of voters seriously. When we hear about it we act to stop it and take steps to prevent it in the future. Any time voters feel they have been asked for ID unnecessarily they should contact our office.

As to the difference between Cook County and Champaign County regarding valid ID, our rules stated that the ID presented must have an address. Cook County did not require an address on the ID. The State Board of Elections did not believe the ID needed to have an address, but that if it did have an address it should match the voter registration address. Because the SBE never created statewide rules, I’m sure there were many other interpretations around the state to this federal statute.

I think an interesting discussion item for the future might be whether ID should be required of all voters. I believe the state of Arizona is implementing such a rule.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS