Agenda Item : Voter ID

Imagine it's the early summer of 1964. Young civil rights activists Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney are canvassing neighborhoods in Mississippi, empowering Black Americans to register to vote. These young men knew the risks—harassment, violence—but they believed in the power of the vote as a fundamental right. Tragically, the risks were even more significant than anticipated; they were murdered for this cause, sacrificing their lives to ensure others could participate in democracy. Nearly 60 years later, their courage continues to inspire. As we look at the president-elect's agenda, where Voter ID laws take a prominent place, we must ask: How would these civil rights heroes view the barriers we may be constructing today?

In today's debates over Voter ID, we can look to the values Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney held so dearly. They fought to make voting accessible, especially to marginalized communities. While Voter ID laws aim to enhance election security, we should carefully weigh this goal against the risk of creating obstacles to the fundamental right to vote, particularly for those whom these activists died defending.

The Purpose of Voter ID Laws: Proponents argue that Voter ID laws are necessary to prevent fraud and bolster the legitimacy of elections. Many feel that requiring ID at the polls is similar to verifying identity when cashing a check or boarding a plane, creating a secure, standardized process. A 2021 Monmouth University poll showed that about 80% of Americans support voter ID requirements, including many Democrats and Independents. This support reflects a societal shift toward ensuring that every vote cast is verifiable and underscores a broad desire for election integrity.

Why the Federal Government Might Get Involved: Historically, voter ID laws have been left to the states. Yet, with increasing public support for uniform election security, a federal approach could provide consistency across states. By establishing federal standards for acceptable forms of ID and supporting states in issuing free IDs, the government could create fairer, more accessible voting requirements. This approach would also reduce disparities between states, addressing concerns that access to voting varies significantly across the country. Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney would likely have supported policies that protect democratic integrity and equal access to the vote, regardless of geographic location.

Potential Disenfranchisement: Despite these security measures, Voter ID laws have raised valid concerns about accessibility. Studies show that many individuals—especially among low-income, elderly, minority, and rural populations—do not have the required forms of ID and face barriers in obtaining them. For example, the Brennan Center reports that 11% of Americans lack government-issued photo identification. Schwerner and his colleagues fought to remove the obstacles that kept marginalized communities from voting. Voter ID requirements, while well-intentioned, could inadvertently place new obstacles in their path, leading many to question whether these laws align with a democratic commitment to inclusivity.

The Reality of Voter Fraud: Opponents of Voter ID laws often point out that in-person voter fraud, which these laws aim to prevent, is extremely rare. Research from the Brennan Center estimates that instances of impersonation are as low as 0.00004% of all votes cast. With such minimal fraud, critics argue that Voter ID laws may solve a problem that doesn't significantly impact election outcomes. Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney championed democracy by empowering individuals to vote, regardless of the political climate. It's worth asking whether policies that could hinder even a tiny fraction of eligible voters serve the democratic principles they upheld.

To be sure, election security is crucial. In an era where misinformation is rampant, voter ID laws provide a sense of assurance to the public. Many other democracies, like Germany and Canada, require identification to vote and have implemented systems to ensure IDs are accessible to all. The challenge for the U.S. is implementing ID policies without sidelining any community. Voter ID laws that are accompanied by provisions to make IDs widely available and accessible could be a potential solution that honors both security and accessibility.

As we reflect on the lives and legacies of Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney, we are reminded of the weight of their sacrifice—a sacrifice made to ensure that every citizen's voice could be heard at the ballot box. In deciding how to implement Voter ID laws, we owe it to them to remember that our electoral system should uphold not only security but also fairness and accessibility. On this anniversary of Michael's birthday, let us advocate for voting policies that secure our elections without making it harder for our most vulnerable citizens to participate in democracy.

To honor Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney, let's call on policymakers at all levels of government to explore balanced voter ID policies that protect our democracy's integrity and inclusivity. Voting should be both safe and accessible. We can build a secure system without sacrificing the values these activists died to defend.