In 2020, I started a new job. This occurred right in the middle of the pandemic when everything was still shut down. As such, the onboarding process was strictly remote, and we did this over webcams. The standard forms clearly outlined the documents: one document from List A or two documents (one from List B and one from List C). My US passport qualified for List A, but it expired (legally just a piece of paper). I had to go with the second option. My driver’s license qualifies for List B; a Social Security card qualifies for List C. I memorized my number years ago, but I didn’t have a physical card.
My new employer gave me a 3-week window to get a replacement card. I started the process with Social Security, which was also under lockdown. It would require meeting with them on webcam; that wait may take as long as three hours. This wasn’t that bad. I worked while I waited for the Social Security administrator. They eventually come in, ask me a few questions, and ask me to hold up my driver’s license to the camera. Approved. I got my new card well within my deadline.
While I realize my employer followed the standard for employment eligibility, there’s something profoundly silly about this process. I need both a document from group A and one from group B. Furthermore, the only thing I needed to obtain the second document from group B was the very same document I used from group A.
Our constitutional voting rights
The law outlines a threshold for DUI; many states set that threshold at 0.08% BAC. Law enforcement uses either a breathalyzer or a blood test to establish that threshold. The law establishes the 0.08% BAC; the use of a breathalyzer or blood test to establish that threshold is an implementation detail. Technology improves. If we can find a more effective way to measure this, we can update how we establish someone’s BAC; this doesn’t alter the law.
Constitutional amendments outline our voting rights. I’ll also include the text of the 14th Amendment, because it’s tangentially applicable. Every US citizen who is at least 18-years old has the right to vote; these voting rights are outlined in the Constitution. The reason I mention the 14th is that everyone born on US soil is by definition a US citizen; it doesn’t matter if they’re the children of undocumented immigrants.
Our voting rights are very clearly outlined. Please read through them carefully. Show me where in the Constitution they mention voter registration. That’s right, the Constitution does not mention voter registration. Much like the breathalyzer, voter registration is merely an implementation detail. There is literally nothing in the Constitution that requires voters to register.
I’m not asserting that they serve no purpose, but let’s put things in perspective. Massachusetts first registered voters in 1800; this was 226 years ago. Two centuries have passed; have we really not improved upon this process? Early tests for intoxication were field sobriety tests (walking straight and touching your nose); we have improved.
What voter registration addresses
I questioned the need for voter registration. From a Constitutional perspective, there’s no requirement for voter registration, but from a pragmatic perspective, does it address a need we still have? There are three essential pieces of information that voter registration establishes:
- US citizenship
- Date of birth
- Residency
From a federal and constitutional perspective, only the first two are required to vote. However, states regulate and conduct elections (yes, even federal elections). I will focus on the first two and postpone the discussion on residency.
Why do we need to register to establish either of the first two? I’m not being glib or dense about this question, I’m genuinely asking. As far as I know, there are two ways to become a US citizen:
- You are born in US territory.
- You are naturalized.
In both cases, the US government tracks your citizenship and birth date on its records. The US government already has this information; they’ve had it since you became a US citizen. Why the need to register for a federal election?
Knowing where you reside
The second discussion is about residency. The state still needs to conduct local elections and thus needs to know where you officially live. They need to determine which ballot initiatives you may vote on, and, if you vote in person, where you’ll vote, etc. I understand the need to establish a voter’s residency.
If only we had one regular communication with the US government. In that communication, we may inform them that we’ve moved. Let’s suppose we set a timetable for that communication; let’s say that we pick an arbitrary date like April 15th.
Many of you probably think that bolting on reporting your residence through the IRS seems misplaced, but it’s not that strange. Several years ago, the US passed a law where if your employer provided you with health insurance you needed to report it. Today, we implement that through the 1095-C tax form. Similarly, officially reporting your residence for voting registration is also not that far-fetched. Furthermore, social security generally knows when you die and stops payments; this also addresses the suspension of voter registration upon one’s death.
The US government already has all the information it collects during voter registration; we may need to get agencies to exchange that information, but collectively, the government already has it. Why the need to register to vote at all?
The instances of voter fraud
I understand that cases of voter fraud exist. There’s a non-profit that meticulously tracks the cases of proven voter fraud since 1982 across the entire country. They list 1,620 proven cases of voter fraud. This is not in a particular state. This is not over a particular time window. They list 1,620 proven cases of voter fraud, spanning over 40 years, across the entire country. Period.
I concede that these are the proven cases and that the actual number is larger. Let’s say, as a hypothetical, the actual figure is ten times the proven figure, so that’d be 16,200 cases. Averaging over the 44-year history, this translates to 7.36 cases of fraud per state per year. This is when we use the inflated figure that is ten times the actual number. The actual figure is 0.736 cases of fraud per state per year, or, if you prefer, about 2.94 cases per state per four-year presidential election cycle.
More importantly, many conservatives assert that voter fraud is rampant, and we need to establish legislation to address election integrity. They claim that liberals gave non-citizens (some undocumented immigrants) the ability to vote. However, it is already illegal for a non-citizen to vote. To establish another law, ironically, from the party of smaller government, that asserts the same thing is pointless.
Are we really drawing new legislation to address the 0.736 cases of voter fraud per state per year?
This is the idea that I want you all to quietly ponder. I concede that it’s tragic that cases of illegally cast votes exist; let’s say that I rate this about a 7 out of 10 for egregiousness. However, I assert that cases where someone who legitimately qualifies to vote is prevented from voting are equally as egregious (7 out of 10).
First, do no harm
As I’ve watched probably too many television series set in a hospital, that nagging voice speaks in my head. It’s the one that recites the Hippocratic Oath, the one that includes, “First, do no harm.” What does that look like for voting rights?
To word it bluntly, can we establish election integrity laws that address the 37 cases of proven voter fraud per year on average (1,620 cases over 44 years) in the United States, while simultaneously not obstructing more than 37 legitimately qualified voters each year? To put it in perspective, if you disqualify more than one voter per state per year, you’re already causing more harm than good. This is not a partisan assertion; this is simply a quantitative assessment.
If you look at the conditions of the SAVE Act. If you cannot get registered because:
- You do not have a passport, which costs $165 to get and takes 4-6 weeks, assuming you have all the appropriate documentation.
- Anyone who has changed their name, like most married women, cannot use their just birth certificate to register to vote.
- You have lost your birth certificate.
As it happens, they have estimated that the SAVE Act would make it harder for millions of people to register and vote. In fact, they estimate that 21.3 million Americans do not have access to the documents that DPOC (documentary proof of citizenship) requires. Or if I may frame it another way.
37 cases of proven voter fraud < 21,300,000 voters suppressed
You want that ratio to be under 1.0 (fewer people harmed than fraudulent votes). In this case, that ratio is 575,675.67; that’s not a typo. Do you still think this bill is a good idea?