My question to opponents of Oklahoma’s Voter ID bill - how does requiring a registered voter to show his or her voter registration card at the poll disenfranchise them?

The League of Liberal Women Voters, and the Democratic Old People (AARP) try to claim that bringing your free voter ID card or even voting by provisional ballot is somehow disenfranchisement.  I think these guys need to go get a dictionary, because that ain’t disenfranchisement, it’s just plain common sense.

Since Indiana first enacted legislation requiring photo ID to vote in 2005, at least a dozen states have either enacted or considered similar legislation. And the results have been nothing but positive. Simply put, states with voter ID laws enjoy higher voter turnout.

Georgia and Indiana, states that have two of the nation’s strictest voter ID laws, experienced huge jumps in voter turnout last November. The overall turnout for the presidential election in Georgia was the largest in state history, an increase of 6.7 percentage points from the 2004 election. And in Indiana, the overall turnout was the fifth highest increase in the country, even though Republican voter turnout actually decreased 3.57 percentage points.

This leads to a very interesting fact: even though liberal Democrats oppose this common sense safeguard, in Indiana the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points — the largest jump in Democratic turnout of any state. In Georgia, the black share of the statewide vote increased from 25% in the 2004 election, when the photo ID law was not in effect, to 30% in the 2008 election, when the photo ID law was in effect. These increases in voter turnout directly contradict liberal claims that photo ID laws discourage minorities and other disadvantaged groups from voting.

Why do photo ID laws actually encourage higher voter turnout? Because it increases the public’s confidence in the election system by assuring them that their votes will count and not be trumped by fraud. Perhaps this is why former President Jimmy Carter, who co-chaired the Commission on Federal Election Reform, acknowledged the benefits of a photo ID. That Commission reported that “(v)oters in nearly 100 democracies use a photo identification card without fear of infringement on their rights.”

So why does the vocal minority continue to fight this reform? Some say there is not a voter fraud problem. Tell that to the voters in Florida, Ohio, and Minnesota, where recent elections were clouded by voting irregularities and claims fraud leading to costly recounts and lawsuits. In several states in 2008, a community organizing group called ACORN fraudulently registered voters under fake names and bribed people to vote multiple times under different aliases. The same thing can easily happen in Oklahoma. Anyone who has voted in our elections knows they can simply choose a name off the voter rolls, claim to be that person, sign their name, and cast their vote. There is no safeguard against it.

Some argue that obtaining a photo ID is too difficult or too costly for those who don’t have them. This argument ignores the fact both existing state law and the proposed photo ID bills in the Oklahoma Legislature allow voters to cast provisional ballots. Furthermore, any alleged cost of implementing a photo ID requirement at the polls would be substantially cheaper than paying for a statewide recount or for teams of high powered Washington DC lawyers tying up our state’s legal system.

I find it very hard to believe that people can get by without a photo ID in today’s world. This morning when I went to work out at the YMCA I had to show a photo ID. At lunch when I paid with my debit card, I was asked to show photo ID. My friend who went to the OU basketball game this week had to show his photo ID to enter Lloyd Noble Center with his student ticket. And anyone buying a ticket to ride the Heartland Flyer (Amtrak) must produce valid photo ID.

I hope that Oklahomans will look past the specious arguments trotted out by opponents of photo ID requirements. Every other state that has enacted these measures has proven the critics wrong. Indeed, these measures have proven to strengthen our election system because they increase the public’s confidence that their votes will count and will not be diluted by fraudulent voters.