The League of Women Voters was founded on the belief that the right to vote is an integral component of what it means to be a citizen. It has worked for 85 years to encourage participation by all citizens in the electoral process, and has worked to facilitate the casting of ballots that will be counted.

The League opposes any additional requirements that may infringe upon the voting rights of Maryland citizens. We oppose the identification requirement proposed in HB 1199. We appreciate that this legislation contains a fall-back provision for voters who lack photo identification. It does however, appear to set up problematic disparate requirements for voters who happen to have photo identification and those that do not. Additionally, if a voter's name appears on the list of registered voters, it is presumed that he or she is validly registered, making the affidavit superfluous. If the voter's name is not on the list of registered voters, the voter would have to apply for and vote a provisional ballot, which process contains this affidavit.

Legislation such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Motor Voter legislation and the Help America Vote Act have made it easier for all citizens to vote. Proof of identity measures take advantage of current anti-voter fraud sentiment across the country to pass restrictive ID measures that will make it harder for U.S. citizens to vote. We note that proponents of voter identification requirements are unable to provide evidence of fraud committed by persons attempting to vote at a polling place on Election Day. This voter identification requirements proposed in this legislation is a solution in search of a problem.

We can offer several reasons why the League of Women Voters opposes photo identification requirements for voting:

Proof of identification requirements are equivalent to a poll tax, because the requirement to obtain a photo identification card places the burden of providing specific documents on voters themselves. In order to obtain an MVA identification card, a person must pay a fee and provide a birth certificate ($12) or a passport ($85). As a result, persons who are unable to pay to prove their identity are denied their right to vote.

Proof of identification requirements may be impossible for some communities to acquire and very hard for others. For instance, in certain parts of the country, elderly African Americans and American Indians were born at home, under care of midwives, and do not possess birth certificates. People of color, people with disabilities, elderly, young and low-income citizens are among the demographic groups least likely to have document to prove identity or citizenship in their possession.

Some argue that the number of people affected by a potential ID requirement for voters is minimal. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the right of an individual to vote is a personal right. (U.S. v. Bathgate - 1918). Although voters who are personally burdened by a voter identification law may be a minority, the number of voters burdened does not determine whether an individual’s fundamental right to vote has been impermissibly infringed. The focus of constitutional inquiry is correctly on the burden to a given individual, and not on the number of people burdened. According to the Supreme Court, the right to vote is personal and a “value unto itself not to be determined by mathematically calculating each individual's power to determine the outcome of an election.

In addition to the substantive objections the League has to the voter identification requirements in HB 1199, we vehemently object to the effective date of this legislation - October 1, 2008. A substantial change to Maryland Election Law such as this would require the State Board of Elections to promulgate and adopt regulations, and to created and disseminate new procedures. Training manuals for election officials and polling place judges would have to be amended, and polling place judges who have already been trained for the 2008 election cycle would be required to undergo additional training prior to the General Election to learn effective and appropriate best practices as to how to determine whether the photo identification presented matches the physical characteristics of the voter. Failure to adopt regulations, create new procedures and provide adequate training would leave polling place judges in a position of potentially disenfranchising validly registered voters. Additionally, and just as important, is that should a voter identification requirement for voting at the polling place be instituted, there would need to be a massive voter education effort to ensure that no voter was disenfranchised by this change.

We urge you to oppose the voter identification requirements proposed in HB 1199.