Republican legislators are promoting a change that could inconvenience voters and complicate the lives of election clerks throughout the state.
A bill proposed by Rep. Richard Cebra, R-Naples, and 83 Republican co-sponsors would force voters to show a photo ID for admission to the polls. It’s a plan that would likely lead to longer voting lines and raise costs, so you’ve got to wonder what’s behind it.
It is needed, supporters claim, to prevent Maine’s negligible amount of voter fraud from getting out of control. Secretary of State Charles Summers, who supports the bill, recently noted that the state would need to create a system for ensuring that all voters can get an appropriate ID without charge. The requirement would have to be phased in gradually, he said, and an educational campaign would also be needed.
Many of us could simply use a valid driver’s license, but the AARP argued that many elderly Mainers don’t have licenses, and would find it hard to sign up for a voter ID. The Student Senate at the University of Maine voted to oppose the bill, noting that students frequently switch residences, even within the same town, and could find themselves disenfranchised.
The importance of voting security is important enough to some Republicans that they are willing to risk disenfranchising some young, elderly and poor voters ”“ who tend to vote for Democrats. Perhaps the sponsors don’t look at this as a political maneuver, but the results would likely help the GOP at the polls.
Opposing the bill, the Maine Municipal Association questioned the need for greater protection against voter fraud. The MMA commented that “municipal officials believe that the photo identification mandate would disenfranchise voters and is generally unnecessary given the close familiarity Maine’s election officials have with each town’s qualified voters.”
Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less