When the nice little elderly lady at the polling place smiled beatifically and handed me an “I Voted” sticker on Election Day, I took it home and added “even though they tried to stop me” before slapping it on.
So, how was your voting experience? I realize that’s a loaded question, and the answer depends heavily on where you live, how you voted, the spelling of your name, how long ago you moved and other factors. Here’s mine. I presented my voter-registration card and yellow postcard indicating my southside polling location to the first poll worker. She barely glanced at these items as she asked me for a photo ID. I replied that I didn’t need one.
She insisted that I did. I politely explained that the documents I presented were legally sufficient identification. Condescendingly, she said, “I have to see a photo ID. Otherwise, how are we going to know you’re who you say you are?” I refused again.
Exasperated, she called over her supervisor, who in turn repeated the poll worker’s assertion. I picked up the yellow card, showed her the identification requirements listed on the back, and asked her to read them. Finally, my documents were closely examined, after which the supervisor shrugged and said, “Well, I guess we’ll accept that.”
I closed my case rather firmly with, “You must accept that, because it’s the law.”
All of the poll workers told me they had been trained that a photo ID was required. I responded that this was very disconcerting, that people were being given false information that presents a significant barrier to voting. I explained that this happens virtually every time I vote, and that it clearly seems to be an institutional problem.
Toward the end of the line, in a voice just above a conspiratorial whisper, one poll worker said, “I agree with you.” Then another chimed in: “You should call Brad Nelson,” Pima County’s elections director.
I said, “Believe me, I’ve called him before.”
Maybe it was time to call again. Granted, I usually vote in high-minority districts, so maybe I should expect to be treated like a criminal at the polls (considering how our institutions treat such communities in general), but that doesn’t make it right. The only time I was not challenged at the polls in recent elections was at a very pale and relatively high-income precinct near Campbell Avenue and Grant Road.
The woman who picked up the phone at the Elections Department insisted that the poll workers had been correct. After the usual back and forth, she transferred me up the chain to a woman who finally agreed that I was correct, apologized sincerely for the “misunderstanding” and offered to transfer me to someone who trains poll workers.
When I told the trainer what the poll workers had said, he became defensive and hostile: “They’re lying through their teeth.” Incredulous, I asked him if he really thought that a half-dozen civic-minded grannies would collectively lie to me about such a thing.
Then he recanted that accusation and implied that their advanced age had reduced their capacity to absorb or remember their training. When I balked at this, too, he tacked sideways: “Maybe they’re remembering previous training.” Somewhere in the middle of me asking, “When has it ever been legally required to show photo ID at the polls?” he hung up on me.
All of this would be laughable, and perhaps easily dismissed, if it hadn’t occurred in a national context of millions of people finding a hassle at the polls, many of whom are effectively prevented from voting in an ongoing pattern that consistently correlates to race and income status.
In Arizona, the American Civil Liberties Union and a coalition of Latino voting-rights groups sent letters raising such concerns to Secretary of State Ken Bennett.
I crunched some numbers on our local election results and discovered a significantly higher incidence of provisional ballots (which tend to go uncounted at a higher rate) in high-minority districts, which is consistent with national trends.
I understand that Mr. Nelson must be very busy overseeing his biennial electoral disaster (and denying that there’s a significant problem), but when the dust settles, he should very carefully examine his system to determine the nature of this problem and a way to fix it.
Beyond that, the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division should examine every one of these cases around the country and bring whatever actions are necessary to ensure that voting is a truly democratic institution, rather than a means of social control.
This article appears in Nov 22-28, 2012.
I live in Santa Cruz County and worked as a poll worker. Each precinct had several laminated instructions concerning the three levels of IDs required. The purpose is to ensure that a person who wants to vote is on the “roster” of voters for that precinct and has an ID that shows a residence in the precinct. Living in the precinct is critical because there are different ballots based on your address. For example, you can only vote for a Nogales City Council member if you live inside the city limits or for school board members if you live in that School District.
There are three lists for IDs, a fairly short “A list of picture IDs such as a driver’s license, with your current address (sometimes they go to DMV and get a corrected one before the polls close). The “B” list is for those with a picture ID but one without your address (such as a military ID card or passport) so something else that shows your name and address (utility bill, etc.) will also be required. The “C” list is for IDs that show name and address without a picture, and two are required, such as a utility bill and your voter ID card (has no picture).
Yes, Randy, a picture ID is NOT required, as the rules are clear for the “C” list IDs. We have at least 25 copies of the kinds of IDs for A, B, and C lists, in English and Spanish, but almost all had the right kind(s) of ID. Those without, were provided conditional ballots (which require verification within 5 days, usually, of the election) or provisional ballots when the address was wrong on an ID, etc. ALL who wanted to vote, were allowed to vote. We never turn them away because anyone can use a provisional ballot; however, when one shows up at the wrong precinct, we send them to the proper one, so they can use the correct ballot for there current address.
From this poll workers view, understanding the A, B, and Cs of IDs is a part of our required training in Santa Cruz County for all poll workers. Again, we never turn voters away, everyone votes who lives in the precinct. And, I’ve been doing this since Arizona started requiring IDs, without any problems. Both training and understanding the law how poll workers will NOT disenfranchise voters.
The worker at my polling place when presented with my voter registration and the yellow card that was mailed to me asked me if I had an ID ID. Every single time I’ve voted since the passage of the voter ID law in AZ I’ve had to explain to a poll worker that my registration card and the post card meet the legal requirements of identification. Here’s what’s so galling about this. What I’m doing, presenting two forms of identification is actually much more secure than presenting a photo ID. Multi factor identification is inhherently more secure than single factor. Ever wonder why your ATM card pin is only 4 digits? Using that card is multi factor identification, you have to have the card and the pin. Why we even bother with the photo ID thing is beyond me anyhow. All voter fraud that occurs is with mail in and absentee ballots.
IF the yellow card was addressed to you personally and not to your ‘household’ – as the yellow cards at my house were addressed – you are correct. If you were trying to pass off a yellow card addressed to ‘household’ the poll workers were right to ask for further identification. AND they should have required you to vote provisionally if you refused to supply an additional proper id (utility bill in your name, auto insurance card in your name, etc). By the way, almost all yellow cards are addressed to ‘household’ if there is more than one voter at the address. Response?
It’s a sad time in this USA, not being able to vote. We are back in the 1950/1960 when they could suppress voting. now they cannot. And to think our US Supreme Court may allow the Southern states to freely suppress votes again. We, the people, must stand up to our law makers and demand new Federal Laws be created. Our democracy depends on freedom to vote, but Republicans don’t want us to be free. They want to control us in every aspect of our lives.
The serious issue is that Republicans are controlling more and more of the states. So our Federal Government must protect the people, because the states won’t.
Charles Chris, the ex Governor of Fl, said on TV last night, that Republicans wanted him to suppress the votes in the 2008 election. They were to target the black votes. Chris said NO. That is why the Republican Party kicked him out after Obama won in 2008. So Gov. Scott of Fl, went along with suppressing the votes, creating long voting lines. His mission was to stop Obama from winning. That is a known fact spoke by Republicans. Suppress the votes.