tip off

Voter ID laws will fix what ain’t broke

Australia’s first voter ID laws will be put to the test next month in a Queensland byelection. The public is increasingly worried about lax identification requirements at polling booths — but with very little voter fraud, are increased measures necessary?

Not long after the major parties reached agreement on the need to re-upholster the system that has delivered an influx of micro-party members to the Senate, a new front is quietly opening on the electoral reform battleground.

Among the motions passed by the Liberal Party’s federal council on Friday was one calling for the introduction of voter identification laws, a notion foreshadowed last October by federal director Brian Loughnane and supported in the party’s submission to the parliamentary inquiry into last year’s election.

This comes three weeks before voter identification laws passed by the Newman government in Queensland face their first test at a byelection in the inner-northern Brisbane seat of Stafford.

Whereas Senate reform entered the spotlight after the election laid bare the manifest deficiency of the status quo, voter identification is on the table because of an initiative of the Coalition, and in accordance with its electoral self-interest.

This has been strongly echoed over the past decade in the United States, where strict voter identification laws have been among a range of measures pursued by Republican-governed states as they test what the courts will let them get away with in making it harder for Democrat-supporting minority groups to vote.

There, as here, opponents argue that acquiring the appropriate identification is disproportionately burdensome to those on the margins of society: the homeless, poor, elderly or non-English speakers. Their case is compelling to the extent that the number of legitimate voters who are effectively disenfranchised is likely to be considerably greater than the number who deliberately engage in multiple voting by impersonating others — which, for all the bluster of certain advocates of voter identification, is repeatedly shown to be negligible.

Casting fraudulent votes on a scale required to have any real chance of affecting the result, even at the level of an individual electorate, would involve great expenditure of effort with considerable risk of detection (at least of the fact of the fraud, if not the identity of the culprits) and little chance of a return on the investment. Proponents of voter identification, at least when they’re being honest, are accordingly required to emphasise what might happen in theory, rather than what actually does in practice.

Nonetheless, the case for voter identification cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Evidence from opinion polling internationally suggests that a public growing ever more familiar with airport security, internet passwords and banking verification systems is finding it increasingly anomalous that their claimed identity should be taken at face value when discharging their solemn duty of choosing the nation’s government.

Where elections are concerned, the level of public confidence in the integrity of the system is no small matter, whatever the validity of the notions that underlie it.

Furthermore, the particular form of the regime being introduced in Queensland indicates that voter identification measures need not be the naked grab for power they so plainly are in the environment of fevered partisanship that prevails in the United States. Whereas the more adventurous of the American states have sought to deny the vote to those without specified types of photo identification, the Queensland model comes with a very substantial safety net.

Voters who find themselves unable to provide identification will be able to lodge a signed declaration vote that can later be admitted to the count if election officials deem it to be bona fide, which they will presumably do by checking the signature.

The measure nonetheless promises to make life more complicated on polling day and to impose a further burden on an election administration framework that, as last year’s federal election showed, is struggling to cope with what’s already on its plate.

ABC election analyst Antony Green argues that the extent of the logistical issues will not be clear until it emerges what proportion of voters are required to cast a declaration vote, while electoral law expert Graeme Orr of the University of Queensland foreshadows problems resulting from the rules being interpreted differently at different polling booths.

Nonetheless, if the Stafford byelection establishes that the Queensland regime can be dispatched with a passable level of efficiency, the federal government is likely to have public opinion on its side when it proceeds with a voter identification initiative of its own.

15
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 1:40 pm | Permalink

    Brian Loughnane aka “Brian Credlin”?

  • 2
    klewso
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 1:45 pm | Permalink

    And what happens if the Limited News Party loses Stafford anyway, despite their fiddling?

  • 3
    wayne robinson
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

    I have a modest proposal, which actually provides a win-win result. Before the last WA state election I received a card in the mail from the AEC detailing my name, address, electorate and closest polling booths.

    I took it along to the polling booth, but it wasn’t required.

    Perhaps it should be made compulsory? Each registered voter should receive one in the post and be required to surrender it when voting. A win for those who think (wrongly) that there’s significant electoral fraud. And a win for Australia Post in providing more work.

    Not having a card would require the elector to make a declaration vote. A further refinement would be to include dob, sex and perhaps a photo of the voter on the card.

  • 4
    Itsarort
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    The difference between us and the US is our compulsory voting regime. If the US had a similar model, I doubt whether the Republicans would ever hold power in their current form. Nick Minchin once touted the idea of non-compulsory voting here in Australia. I wonder why…?

  • 5
    SusieQ
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

    Wayne Robinson, whilst I understand the thinking behind your proposal, doesn’t it seem just one step away from an ID card? Surely that is something we do not want to introduce?

  • 6
    wayne robinson
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    SuzieQ,

    I did preface my comment with ‘a modest proposal’ as a reference to Jonathan Swift. It wasn’t meant to be taken seriously (although, I actually do think consuming babies of the poor is actually a very good idea).

    Anyway. Even if implemented it wouldn’t be an ID card. The card would be surrendered on voting.

  • 7
    Yclept
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 4:16 pm | Permalink

    So if everyone leaves their ID at home (oops) they can cause chaos in the system, with a result not known until all those signatures are checked. Sounding good…

  • 8
    AR
    Posted Monday, 30 June 2014 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    Itsa - voluntary voting is Minchin’s perennial wet dream, which he has been assiduously & tirelessly promoting at least since I first had the misfortune to learn of him in the 80s.
    This non-issue of ID looks, to me - naif that I am - like the thin end of a long planned wedge.

  • 9
    Sean Doyle
    Posted Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    @wayne robinson #3: One group likely to be disadvantaged by that modest proposal is the homeless, who tend to lack fixed addresses to receive mail at. Since this group also tends to lack formal ID due to cost issues, they would also be disadvantaged under the Queensland ID laws, too.

    ID laws on their own would not be a major issue in Australia due to compulsory voting and the High Court being very likely to strike down any ID laws that would exclude significant numbers of voters (based on their rejection of the Howard Government laws that tried to strip voting rights from some prisoners). However, if they could end compulsory voting, then it’ll be party time for the coalition parties.

  • 10
    wayne robinson
    Posted Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    Sean,

    My ‘modest proposal’ was a bit of a spoof. It would be expensive, moving the cost of providing some ID from the elector to the AEC.

    Anyway. How do the homeless or electors with no fixed address currently register to vote? Wouldn’t they need to have some address in an electorate?

    I agree that the voting system isn’t badly broken, and certainly wouldn’t want to adopt one of the current American systems.

  • 11
    Di Keller
    Posted Tuesday, 1 July 2014 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Sooo you are saying we should change the system because some people have the wrong idea about it ??

    It is perhaps a bit naive to think if the Queensland example doesn’t create to much fuss it will go further. In fact the federal government that is precisely what the federal government wants to do .

    We have a great simple voting system which tries to help everyone who wants to vote, this proposal is just the opposite. We should be fighting it with all we have !

  • 12
    Posted Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    The conservative federal Canadian Government is also introducing voter ID, for the same reasons justified on the same spurious grounds.

    How does voter ID interact with compulsory voting? Might more people fail to turn up at a polling booth with the excuse that they didn’t have ID on them?

  • 13
    Albert Ross
    Posted Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    wayne robinson - a voter ID card such as you describe was required in the Republic of Ireland when I lived there in the 70s.

    Sending out cards by post did nothing to reduce personation as partisans of the various parties used to collect the cards of the their friends, relos and neighbours who were not inclined to vote and arranged for their use. Plus the mail boxes of flats and bed-sits would be raided and cards stolen on the basis that the intended recipients were likely to be transients and/or not care.

    One work colleague who was a very keen supporter of Fianna Fáil claimed that he had voted 50 times on one election day.

  • 14
    wayne robinson
    Posted Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Albert,

    I agree it wouldn’t work. It was a spoof. It wouldn’t be necessary to raid letter boxes. All you’d need to do is forge the cards, which would be as simple as an impostor going along to a polling booth.

  • 15
    Di Keller
    Posted Wednesday, 2 July 2014 at 9:46 am | Permalink

    So everyone is now trying to figure out how we can defraud a system that we don’t have yet. Hahaha!!

    They should have kept their mouths shut.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...