If you do not have one of these IDs and require one for voting purposes, you may be entitled to get one FREE OF CHARGE at a PennDOT Driver License Center.Analysis from various quarters determined it is likely that more voters in 2000 intended to vote for Gore in Florida, perhaps thousands more. Others were hindered, some unknown number probably not voting, for various reasons, including wrongful labeling of some people as felons -- that is, the term is something of a misnomer unless the label should be a mark of Cain, held to be disqualified from voting at the time because of past crimes. We sometimes here that press recounts held Gore would have lost anyway (no -- depends on what standard was used) or the final ruling was 7-2 (Breyer strangely enough joined a dissent signed by the two and four justices each "dissented," none concurring with the majority). But, this wider concern is if anything more important.
Voting is an imperfect business and in any close case is not likely to be perfect. But, at some point, the margin of error is a problem. This is especially the case when it is encouraged (often in a partisan way) by misguided laws. Along with anti-abortion regulations, anti-gay laws and bad economic policies, Republicans (and it is noticeably so) have put in place restrictive voting rules to address what amounts to a non-problem. Rick Hasen in that link, after noting even if their negative influence is not as bad as some fear, lists five problems:
1. The tough new voter id laws serve no purpose.The lead quote is from a page discussing a new Pennsylvania voting id law. [One guess on what party now controls the state.] Those who defend such laws tend to note that there are options to get a free id (id generally not found by the courts yet to be a poll tax for purposes of the 24A though if overly burdensome, it is a problem). But, and the dissents in Crawford recognized this fact, "free" can be something of a misnomer. The law here requires those who wish to get a free voting id go to the listed center and show other id. If you don't have that, which isn't free in my state btw, there is another process involved and a return engagement. This rigmarole can involve multiple trips, trips that might involve missing work or some other burdensome activity.
2. Many Republican legislators support them for the wrong reason.
3. Even if the effects are small, they can still matter in razor-thin elections.
4. Even when effects are too small to affect the outcome of elections, we should not make it harder for people to vote for no good reason.
5. What we really need is universal voter registration supported by the government, and national voter identification cards with optional thumbprints.
At best, laws of this sort should be put in abeyance for a year or more and not applied to the immediate election so that voters could go thru this rigamarole first. An id can be helpful, but it the state requires it, it should proactively address the fact many don't have it (one number puts it at 9% of the potential voters here, over 750K; Hasen says maybe much less, but who knows? again, enough to matter for little real value -- even the appearance of voting irregularities can be addressed in other ways).
To me, it is clear that Kerry lost in Ohio, and thus lost the 2004 elections. But, there were enough problems in that election to be of a concern, and some people still aren't sure (some go the other way and think it is pretty clear Bush lost -- Ehrman can say a word or two to these people). Most thought little about it, just as only a segment of the population cared about the problems with the results in 2000. Doesn't mean it doesn't matter and that we can just write off millions of people, voters who matter in our republican system of government. Same this time around.
We "may" be entitled to be assured voter intent, not artificial winnowing out of the "wrong type of voter," will determine who wins in November.