Obama's Policies: Redistribution Over Capitalism, Dependency Over Prosperity

By Susan Duclos
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Via RNC Research:

Obama’s Policies Have Echoed His Support For The Redistribution Of Wealth

Obama: “I Actually Believe In Redistribution.” “Let me just close by saying as we think about the policy research surrounding the issues that I just named, the policy research for the working poor, broadly defined. I think that what we are going to have to do is somehow resuscitate the notion that government action can be effective at all. There has been a systematic – I don’t think it’s too strong to call it a propaganda campaign against the possibility of government action and its efficacy. And I think some of it has been deserved. Chicago Housing Authority has not been a model of good policymaking. And neither necessarily have been the Chicago Public Schools. What that means that as we try to resuscitate this notion that we’re all in this together, leave nobody behind. We do have to be innovative in thinking how – what are the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live? And my suggestion I guess would be that the trick – and this is one of the few areas where I think there are technical issues that have to be dealt with as opposed to just political issues. I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence, facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure everybody’s got a shot.” (State Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At Loyola University Panel, Chicago, IL, 10/19/98)

OBAMA’S OWN CHIEF ADVISERS AND ALLIES EQUATE DEPENDENCE WITH ECONOMIC STIMULUS

White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett Said Unemployment Checks Help Stimulate The Economy. VALERIE JARRETT: “Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community. And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it’s good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that’s healthy as well.”

(Valerie Jarrett, Remarks At A Student Summit At North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, 2/21/12)
VIDEO: WH Senior Adviser: Unemployment Stimulates the Economy



Obama Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack Says More People On Food Stamps Means More Jobs . WES MOORE: “Mr. Secretary, good morning. Many people don’t know that actually food stamps fall under the Department of Agriculture. And a report was just released that nearly 1 in 7 Americans now are currently on food stamps. What strategies — what’s being done right now and being done going forward that is really addressing poverty and the poor within the country and bringing some alleviation to those kinds of numbers?” SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE TOM VILSACK: “Well, obviously, it’s putting people to work, which is why we’re going to propose some interesting things during the course of the forum this morning. Later this morning, we’re going to have a press conference with myself and Secretary Mavis and Secretary Chu to announce something that’s never happened in this country which we think is exciting in terms of job growth. But I should point out that when you talk about the snap program or the food stamp program, you have to recognize that it’s also an economic stimulus. Every dollar of snap benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity. If people are able to buy a little more in the grocery store, then someone has to stock it, shelve it, process it, package it, ship it. All of those are jobs. It’s the most direct stimulus you can get in the economy during these tough times. The reason why these numbers have gone up is we’ve done a pretty good job of working with states that have done a poor job in the past about the getting word out about this program. States like California and Texas and Florida underperformed and we’re now working with them to make sure that people who are eligible get the benefits and therefore help stimulate their local economy.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe ,” 8/16/11)

VIDEO: Obama Ag Secretary: More People On Food Stamps Means More Jobs




White House Press Secretary Jay Carney Says That Unemployment Benefits Create Jobs . REPORTER: “I understand why extending unemployment insurance provides relief to people who need it, but how does it create jobs?” WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY JAY CARNEY: “Oh, it is by — I would expect a reporter from the Wall Street Journal would know this as part of the entrance exam just to get on the paper — (laughter.) But the — no, seriously. It is one of the most direct ways to infuse money into the economy because people who are unemployed and obviously aren’t earning a paycheck are going to spend the money that they get. They’re not going to save it; they’re going to spend it. And unemployment insurance, that money goes directly back into the economy dollar for dollar virtually. So it is — and when it goes back in the economy, it means that everywhere that those people — everyplace that that money is spent has added business. And that creates growth and income for businesses that then lead them to making decisions about job — more hiring. So there are few other ways that can more directly put money into the economy than providing unemployment insurance.” (White House Press Briefing, 8/10/11)


House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Said Unemployment Benefits “Creates Jobs To Help Reduce The Deficit.” “‘Unemployment insurance, the economists tell us, return $2 for every $1 that is put out there for unemployment insurance,’ Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on the House floor. ‘It injects demand into the economy, it creates jobs to help reduce the deficit,’ Pelosi said.” (“Nancy Pelosi: Unemployment Benefits ‘Creates Jobs’,” Real Clear Politics, 12/2/10)

VIDEO: Pelosi Thinks Unemployment Benefits Create Jobs




Pelosi Claimed Unemployment Checks Creates Jobs Faster Than “Almost Any Other Initiative You Can Name.” “‘It injects demand into the economy,’ Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said of unemployment checks. ‘It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name.’” (“Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Serve As A “Job Creator,” Real Clear Politics, 7/1/10)
VIDEO: Pelosi: Unemployment Checks Create Jobs Faster Than Almost Any Other Initiative

OBAMA’S POLICIES PRIORITIZE DEPENDENCY OVER PROSPERITY

The Stimulus Centered More On Short-Term Handouts Than Long-Term Employment

When The Obama Transition Team Was Debating How To Spend The Stimulus, Food Stamps And Unemployment Benefits Were “No-Brainers.” “The big question was how to spend it. Unemployment benefits, food stamps, and other aid to vulnerable families would be no-brainers, acing the three-T test while providing $505 billion to people in need. Furman’s PowerPoint also included $80 billion worth of aid to states, to prevent fifty gubernatorial mini-Hoovers from undermining Obama’s stimulus with drastic layoffs and other anti-stimulus.” (Michael Grunwald, The New New Deal, 2012, p. 95)

Obama’s Campaign Viewed Unemployment Benefits And Food Stamps As “Excellent Stimulus.” “The team’s Clinton-era combat veterans did not assume that passing jobs bills would be easy. They remembered Republicans blocking their relatively tiny $19 billion stimulus in 1993, even after Democrats whittled it down and offered offsets. They tended to be skeptical of Obama’s post-partisan dreams. So even though unemployment benefits and food stamps were excellent stimulus, Lew warned that Republicans would criticize them as big-government welfare.” (Michael Grunwald, The New New Deal, 2012, p. 82)

When Shaping Their Stimulus Plan, The Obama Campaign Prioritized An Increase In Food Stamps, Followed By Extensions In Unemployment Insurance. “A new Brookings stimulus analysis titled ‘If, When, How’ rated both strategies ‘ineffective or counterproductive,’ while a Moody’s Economy.com analysis of how much growth various policies would produce per dollar – the Keynesian multiplier – scored both below 50 cents. The Brookings report was written by two Clinton administration economists – Jason Furman, a Summers protégé who was running the Hamilton Project, and Doug Elmendorf, another former Summers student – but the Moody’s author, Mark Zandi, was a McCain campaign adviser. By contrast, policies benefiting lower-income families provided much more bang for the buck, because the poor can’t afford to hoard. Increases in food stamps earned the highest multiplier from moody’s adding $1.73 in output for each dollar cost. Extending unemployment benefits, which normally expire after six months, came in second. Those strategies batted for 3-for-3. The benefits would go out instantly, target families likely to spend, and fade once the economy improved.” (Michael Grunwald, The New New Deal, 2012, p. 62)

• Biden Economic Adviser Jared Bernstein: “‘Everyone Was Carrying Around This List Of Multipliers,’ … ‘And Food Stamps Was Always At The Top.’” “Jared Bernstein, who was Joe Biden’s main economic adviser during the financial crisis, told me that Zandi’s chart was taken very seriously by the economic team. ‘Everyone was carrying around this list of multipliers,’ Bernstein said. ‘And food stamps was always at the top. That had the largest multiplier.’ (Almost four years later, Bernstein still had the food-stamp multiplier committed to memory.)” (Paul Tough, “Obama Vs. Poverty,”The New York Times, 8/15/12)

When Devising The Stimulus, Obama Advisers Jason Furman And Jared Bernstein Sought To “Modernize And Expand The System” Of Unemployment Insurance. “So Furman and Bernstein worked with House Democrats like New York’s Charlie Rangel and Jim McDermott of Washington to modernize and expand the system, providing $7 billion in incentives for states to eliminate the time lags and loosen their eligibility rules. Governors would be reward for extending benefits to part-time workers, as well as workers who quit jobs to care for a family member, follow a spouse who had to relocate, or escape domestic violence. These reforms wouldn’t attract much attention, but they would extend the New Deal safety net to new cohorts of deserving workers while providing an automatic Keynesian stabilizer in terms of high unemployment.” (Michael Grunwald, The New New Deal, 2012, pp. 169-170)

The Stimulus Suspended The Time Limits For Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents Who Do Not Work At Least 20 Hours Per Week In A Job From April 2009 To September 2010. “Section 1019(e) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA,P.L. 111-5) suspended the ABAWD time limits for those who do not work at least 20 hours per week in a job. This suspension covered the period April 2009 through September 30, 2010; it will be discussed further in a subsequent section.” (“FY 2007-FY2012: Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Requirements, Statistics, And Waivers,” Congressional Research Service, 9/14/12)

• From 2008 To 2010, The Number Of ABAWD Participants On Food Stamps Increased From 1.9 Million To 3.9 Million. (“FY 2007-FY2012: Able-Bodied Adults Without Dependents (ABAWD) Requirements, Statistics, And Waivers,” Congressional Research Service, 9/14/12)

A Vision Of “The Life Of Julia” For Every American

“As A Story, ‘The Life Of Julia’ Is A Mess; It’s Got The Verisimilitude Of A String Of Paper Dolls. As An Argument, It’s Worse.” “But ‘The Life of Julia’ borrows its aesthetic from USA Today and its narrative logic from Chutes and Ladders. It is a very bad place to begin a campaign. As a story, ‘The Life of Julia’ is a mess; it’s got the verisimilitude of a string of paper dolls. As an argument, it’s worse. Better public education and affordable health care are worth fighting for, urgently, and they matter to everyone, but the heart of the fight is not over whether Julia, a fictitious college-educated Web entrepreneur, can one day plant Brussels sprouts.” (Jill Lepore, “Oh Julia: From Birth To Death: Left And Right,” The New Yorker, 5/8/12)

• Politico ‘s Mike Allen: “‘The Life Of Julia’ Takes Her From Age 3 To Age 67, And At Every Single Point Along The Way, The Government Is Giving Her A Hand.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 5/4/12)

• MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski: “At Some Point We Do Have To Be Able To Inspire Innovation And Hope And Get People On Their Way.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 5/4/12)

• MSNBC’s Willie Geist: “And No One Wants To Think That From The Age Of 3 They Are Going To Need The Government To Take Care Of Them.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 5/4/12)

OBAMA’S POLICIES OF REDISTRIBUTION HAVE ONLY EXACERBATED THE PROBLEM AND LEFT MORE PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT

“49.1%: Percent Of The Population That Lives In A Household Where At Least One Member Received Some Type Of Government Benefit In The First Quarter Of 2011.” (Phil Izzo, “Number Of The Week: Half Of U.S. Lives In Household Getting Benefits,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Real Time Economics,” 5/26/12)



A Record 46.7 Million Americans Were On Food Stamps In June 2012. (“Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program: Number Of Persons Participating,” USDA Food And Nutrition Service, Accessed 9/6/12)

Since President Obama Took Office, The Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps Has Increased From 31.9 Million To 46.7 Million, A Record 46 Percent Increase. (“Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program: Number Of Persons Participating ,” Food Research And Action Center, Accessed 8/10/12; “Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program: Number Of Persons Participating,” USDA Food And Nutrition Service , Accessed 9/6/12)


Bloomberg Headline : “Food-Stamp Use Climbs To Record, Reviving Campaign Issue” (Alan Bjerga, “Food-Stamp Use Climbs To Record, Reviving Campaign Issue,”Bloomberg, 9/4/12)

• “The Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Hit A Record High In June…” “The number of Americans on food stamps hit a record high in June, and economists don’t expect much improvement as long as unemployment remains high. Those receiving benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program numbered 46.37 million, the government said in a report that hit just days ahead of the monthly nonfarm payrolls report, which the Labor Department releases Friday. The two numbers are inextricably linked as the economy battles its way back from the crippling recession that the National Bureau of Economic Research says ended in 2009.” (Jeff Cox, “Record 46 Million Americans Are On Food Stamps,” CNBC, 9/4/12)

Nearly 17 Million Americans Suffered From “Very Low Food Security” In 2011. (Alisha Coleman, Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson, “Household Food Security In The United States In 2011,” USDA, 9/5/12)

• At 16.4 Percent, The Overall Food-Insecurity Rate For Individuals In 2011 Remains Almost Unchanged From “When It Surged To The Highest Levels Since The Agriculture Department Began Monitoring Food Security In 1995.” “The overall food-insecurity rate for individuals was 16.4 percent, almost unchanged since 2008, when it surged to the highest levels since the Agriculture Department began monitoring food security in 1995.” (Charles Abbott, “Nearly 17 Million Americans Repeatedly Short Of Food: Report,” Reuters, 9/5/12)

In 2011, 46.2 Million Americans Lived In Poverty, As The Official Poverty Rate Was 15 Percent. “In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty (Figure 4 and Table 3).” (Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, “Income, Poverty, And Health Insurance Coverage In The United States: 2011,” U.S. Census Bureau, 9/12/12)

• Under Obama, Poverty Has Either Increased Or Been Stagnant. “After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2010 estimates (Figure 4 and Table 3).” (Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, “Income, Poverty, And Health Insurance Coverage In The United States: 2011,” U.S. Census Bureau, 9/12/12)

Anthony Ortolani, Man Who Left His Dog 'Missy' To Die On Colorado Mountain, Says He Got Death Threats

09/17/12 01:27 PM ET EDT

DENVER — A man who left his dog to die on a Colorado mountain said he received death threats, even though he has paid vet bills and agreed to turn over the dog to one of the rescuers.

Anthony Ortolani said Sunday he is giving the German shepherd mix to one of the people who climbed Mount Bierstadt to rescue Missy after the animal spent eight days on her own last month.

Another hiker spotted the injured dog, volunteers coordinated a rescue effort through a climbing website. Rescuers found the dog bloodied and close to death on a ridge.

Ortolani is charged with animal cruelty for leaving the dog behind on a mountain climbing trip. His lawyer, Jennifer Edwards, said her client hopes to make a plea deal.

Ortolani told KMGH-TV () he was forced to leave the dog on the mountain after the animal got injured. He said he and a friend tried to carry the 112-pound animal for more than two hours over rocky terrain, but he worried for his safety and had to abandon her. http://tinyurl.com/8oapmtf

"I don't want to give her up. I love her, but those people risked life and limb to get her out of there, and that has got to be worth something," said Ortalani, adding that he has already paid close to $5,000 in vet and boarding bills.

Ortolani was climbing with the 19-year-old son of a friend when bad weather moved in. He said the canine's feet were blistered and she was unable to walk. He said he and his climbing companion were also struggling in the bad weather and decided it was time to come down for their own safety.

"Carrying her down, unfortunately caused her more injury," Ortolani said. "She fought with me and squirmed off my shoulders, and I dropped her on some rocks and she got hurt worse. Everybody says `Why didn't you go back?' My physical condition was significantly deteriorated, my emotional condition was no good. I thought she was dead."

The dog owner called a friend who contacted the Clear Creek County Sheriff's Office but was told the region was too dangerous and crews don't rescue animals.

Ortolani acknowledged that he didn't put up a sign on the trailhead bulletin board asking to be contacted if anyone saw his dog. He said he takes full responsibility for taking the dog with him on a hike that proved to be too difficult for her.

"I've always wanted nothing but the best for her, and that's why I take her everywhere with me," he said.

After Ortolani learned of the rescue, he asked for his dog back. but Clear Creek County authorities conducted an investigation and charged him with animal cruelty.

The decision to give up custody of Missy was part of a possible plea bargain.

Meanwhile, the group that rescued Missy will appear on the Ellen DeGeneres Show on Monday.

Jackson Ripley, 12-Year-Old Coloradan Boy, Writes Letter To Romney Saying His 'Plan For America Isn't What We Need' (PHOTOS)

The Huffington Post  |  By Andrea Rael Posted: 09/18/2012 9:20 am EDT Updated: 09/20/2012 1:26 pm EDT

Jackson Ripley, 12, is pictured here with his younger sister Kennedy, 7, in a photo provided by his mother Lindsay. Kennedy was diagnosed with hemangioma when she was just 4 weeks old. She's had pre-existing conditions ever since.

Although Gov. Mitt Romney has largelyconfounded the media while trying to sway voters over to his increasingly difficult to pinpoint health care plan, his comments are not evading one 12-year-old Coloradan.

Last week Jackson Ripley was watching political news coverage with his mom about pre-existing health care when he suddenly got up and decided it was time to write a letter to Romney.

The letter begins (Editor note: all text from letter remains unedited):

Dear Governor Romney, I’d like to say congratulations on winning the republican nomination. But, I wish you stayed in Massachusetts. You’re plan for America isn’t what we need, and would hurt us more than it would help.

Jackson goes on to call out Romney on his health care stance and whether he actually will or won't repeal Obamacare, especially with regard to patients with pre-existing conditions, citing contradicting statements from Romney on "Meet the Press" and the "Tonight Show." Jackson also has strong words for Romney and his stance on gay and women's rights:

You’re domestic plans (birth control, gay rights etc.) are horrible! Women should get to manage their own health, and if you wonder why you’re not appealing to many women voters, rethink your birth control and women’s’ rights plans. And people should be able to marry whom they want.

Read Jackson's full letter in its entirety below.

Jackson's strong political beliefs appear to have, in part, grown naturally from his family's life experiences beginning with his little sister Kennedy who has had pre-existing conditions since she was just 4 weeks old.

Shortly after Kennedy was born, she developed a hemangioma -- an abnormal, raised tumor of blood vessels -- on her face. According to her mother, Lindsay Ripley, only 10 percent of children are born with a hemangioma and less than one percent of the cases are life-threatening, like Kennedy's.

The tumor grew so large that at just nine months old, Kennedy was diagnosed with congestive heart failure.

"She was very ill and in and out of the hospital for the first two years of her life. During which she had several procedures, surgeries, MRI's, CT's and hospitalized many, many times, making her our million dollar baby when she was around a year old," Lindsay Ripley told The Huffington Post.

In 2009, the flailing economy left Lindsay's husband John Ripley briefly without a job, and the family no longer had health insurance. John Ripley was employed again just three months later, but the smaller size of the company translated into a burgeoning reality that the family would have to shop for insurance elsewhere.

And everywhere they shopped they were accepted, except for Kennedy.

"Next to my daughter's name in big black bold letters was the word DENIED. The reason: Dollar amount previously spent, number of hospitalizations within five years and the pre-existing condition, congestive heart failure. I knew they were going to deny Kennedy, but I wasn’t prepared for how angry and sick it would make me feel," Lindsay Ripley said. "Like the insurance companies were saying my daughter was trash, she didn’t matter, wasn’t worth the same the health care and coverage the rest of us enjoy. Our only option was to purchase Kennedy an expensive policy through an insurance company exclusively for people with pre-existing conditions. Although they accepted Kennedy and took our money each month, they refused to cover her pre-existing condition, or anything caused by it, which was almost everything."

Jackson Ripley explained some of his reasoning behind the letter:

My inspiration for the letter was basically my frustration. It was painful (and sometimes a little funny) to see all the people that blindly supporting [sic] Mitt Romney, and I felt like I should bring that to people's attention. I already knew that his plans for America would tear us apart, and would bring more harm than good to families like mine, so I had to make a stand. What he would do was unfair, and I wanted to say something about that.

Lindsay Ripley shared Jackson's letter among some friends and family before sharing it with The Huffington Post and mailing it to Romney. She said that in 2010, the same year the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, Kennedy was added back onto the family policy but that she's since been diagnosed with a vascular malformation and will very likely require treatment for the rest of her life.

I think partly due to his sister's illness, at an early age Jackson began to notice injustices in the world that many children never see. Writing has always been a great outlet for Jackson, so three years ago when he was upset about the war in Iraq, we said, "write a letter to the president." And Jackson did. A year later when Jackson saw a homeless man in Cherry Creek and became very upset, we said "write a letter." After buying the man a Cinnabon, Jackson wrote to then-Mayor John Hickenlooper and thanked him for his efforts to end homelessness in Denver. When Jackson came home from school last week, I had the news on and they were discussing the fate of health care and preexisting condition coverage if Governor Romney were to become president. Jackson watched the segment with me. When it was over, Jackson stood up and said, "Excuse me mom, I have to go write a very strongly-worded letter!" So John and I no longer say "write a letter" because he does it on his own.

Read Jackson's full letter to Gov. Romney below (spelling/grammar is unchanged from original letter):

Dear Governor Romney,

I’d like to say congratulations on winning the republican nomination. But, I wish you stayed in Massachusetts. You’re plan for America isn’t what we need, and would hurt us more than it would help.

First, repealing Obama care and other health plans he’s put in place have helped families across America, including mine. I live in a middle class family, and two years ago my little sister; Kennedy was denied insurance because of her pre-existing condition. This was a huge emotional stress and financial burden on my entire family. Under Obama Care, insurance companies can no longer deny Kennedy and kids like her, the coverage they need and deserve. Because of Obama care my little sister was able to have the several surgeries she needed that helped save her life. Once the President was elected he put Obama Care into action, just like he promised and made it so that you could get insurance with pre-existing conditions. This has made a direct impact on my family. My family is with out a doubt better off now, than we were four years ago!

It is to my understanding that you stated that you were going to repeal Obama Care, including the part I have mentioned, which will take away the insurance we have and need for my sister Kennedy. Why do you think she doesn’t deserve health care? Also, when you were interviewed on “Meet the Press”, you stated that you would NOT repeal this part of Obama Care, but then your campaign backpedalled and on the “Tonight show with Jay Leno”, you said that you WOULD repeal this.

Also, you’re domestic plans (birth control, gay rights etc.) are horrible! Women should get to manage their own health, and if you wonder why you’re not appealing to many women voters, rethink your birth control and women’s’ rights plans. And people should be able to marry whom they want. We built this country so people could have freedom, and not have religious beliefs control them to that length. This country was in no way built on any religion, so we should not create laws that repress the American people in a religious way and hurt our most vulnerable.

Sincerely,
Jackson Ripley, age 12

 

Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About Voter ID Laws

A local resident casts her vote at a polling station in Sandy Springs, Ga., on March 6, 2012. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

by Suevon Lee
ProPublica, Sept. 18, 2012, 5:12 p.m.

• 69 Comments2e

Editor's note: This post, which was first published July 23, 2012, has been updated with new developments.
Voter IDs laws have become a political flashpoint in what's gearing up to be another close election year. Supporters say the laws — which 30 states have now enacted in some form — are needed to combat voter fraud, while critics see them as a tactic to disenfranchise voters.

We've taken a step back to look at the facts behind the laws and break down the issues at the heart of the debate.

So what are these laws?
They are measures intended to ensure that a registered voter is who he says he is and not an impersonator trying to cast a ballot in someone else's name. The laws, most of which have been passed in the last several years, require that registered voters show ID before they're allowed to vote. Exactly what they need to show varies. Some states require a government-issued photo, while in others a current utility bill or bank statement is sufficient.

As a registered voter, I thought I always had to supply some form of ID during an election.
Not quite. Per federal law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement. Some states generally advise voters bring some form of photo ID. But prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting. Indiana in 2006 became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, a law that was upheld two years later by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why are these voter ID laws so strongly opposed?
Voting law opponents contend these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to vote Democratic. Obtaining photo ID can be costly and burdensome, with even free state ID requiring documents like a birth certificate that can cost up to $25 in some places. According to a study from NYU's Brennan Center, 11 percent of voting-age citizens lack necessary photo ID while many people in rural areas have trouble accessing ID offices. During closing arguments in a recent case over Texas's voter ID law, a lawyer for the state brushed aside these obstacles as the "reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas."
Attorney General Eric Holder and others have compared the laws to a poll tax, in which Southern states during the Jim Crow era imposed voting fees, which discouraged the working class and poor, many of whom were minorities, from voting.
Given the sometimes costly steps required to obtain needed documents today, legal scholars argue that photo ID laws create a new "financial barrier to the ballot box."

Just how well-founded are fears of voter fraud?
There have been only a small number of fraud cases resulting in a conviction. A New York Times analysis from 2007 identified 120 cases filed by the Justice Department over five years. These cases, many of which stemmed from mistakenly filled registration forms or misunderstanding over voter eligibility, resulted in 86 convictions.
There are "very few documented cases," said UC-Irvine professor and election law specialist Rick Hasen. "When you do see election fraud, it invariably involves election officials taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee ballots which voter ID laws can't prevent," he said.
An analysis by News21, a national investigative reporting project, identified 10 voter impersonation cases out of 2,068 alleged election fraud cases since 2000 – or one out of every 15 million prospective voters.
One of the most vocal supporters of strict voter ID laws, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, told the Houston Chronicle earlier this month that his office has prosecuted about 50 cases of voter fraud in recent years. "I know for a fact that voter fraud is real, that it must be stopped, and that voter id is one way to prevent cheating at the ballot box and ensure integrity in the electoral system," he told the paper. Abbott's office did not immediately respond to ProPublica's request for comment.

How many voters might be turned away or dissuaded by the laws, and could they really affect the election?
It's not clear.
According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don't have government-issued photo ID. This figure doesn't represent all voters likely to vote, just those eligible to vote.
State figures also can be hard to nail down. In Pennsylvania, nearly 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voter base, don't own state-issued ID cards, according to an analysis of state records by the Philadelphia Inquirer. State officials, on the other hand, place this number at between 80,000 and 90,000.
In Indiana and Georgia, states with the earliest versions of photo ID laws, about 1,300 provisional votes were discarded in the 2008 general election, later analysis has revealed.
As for the potential effect on the election, one analysis by Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog estimates they could decrease voter turnout anywhere between 0.8 and 2.4 percent. It doesn't sound like a very wide margin, but it all depends on the electoral landscape.
"We don't know exactly how much these news laws will affect turnout or skew turnout in favor of Republicans," said Hasen, author of the recently released The Voting Wars: From Florida 2000 to the Next Election Meltdown. "But there's no question that in a very close election, they could be enough to make a difference in the outcome."

When did voter ID laws get passed — and which states have the strictest ones?
The first such law was passed as early as 2003, but momentum has picked up in recent years. In 2011 alone, legislators in 34 states introduced bills requiring voters show photo ID — 14 of those states already had existing voter ID laws but lawmakers sought to toughen statutes, mainly to require proof of photo identification.
The National Conference of State Legislatures has a helpful breakdown of states' voter ID laws and how they vary.

Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas and Pennsylvania have the toughest versions. These states won't allow voters to cast a regular ballot without first showing valid photo ID. Other states with photo ID laws offer some more flexibility by providing voters with several alternatives.

What happens if a voter can't show valid photo ID in these states?
These voters are entitled to a provisional ballot. To ensure their votes count, however, they must produce the mandatory ID within a certain time frame and affirm in person or writing they are the same individual who filled out a temporary ballot on Election Day. The time limits vary: They range anywhere from up to three days after the election (Georgia) to noon the Monday after the election (Indiana).

Are there any exceptions to the photo ID requirement?
Yes. Indigency or religious objections to being photographed. But these exceptions don't automatically grant a voter the ability to cast a regular ballot: In Pennsylvania and Indiana, voters will be given a provisional ballot and must sign an affidavit for their exemption within the given time frame. For a more specific breakdown of all exceptions, see this state-by-state summary.

Why is the Justice Department getting involved in some cases?
Because of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires that states with a history of discrimination receive preclearance before making changes to voting laws. Texas and South Carolina passed strict photo ID laws in 2011 but were refused preclearance by the DOJ, which argued that these laws could suppress turnout among minority voters. Texas went to court seeking judicial preclearance from a federal district court; in August, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia blocked the law. South Carolina has presented arguments before the same court.

What about challenges to the laws?
On Aug. 15, a Pennsylvania judge shot down an attempt to attempt to block the state’s voter ID law. The plaintiffs appealed. On Sept. 18, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by a 4-2 vote, vacated the judge’s order and returned the case for further review. The justices asked the trial judge to assess whether voters could obtain state-issued photo ID without difficulty in the short time remaining before the November general election. If the judge could not be convinced voters wouldn’t be disenfranchised, the justices wrote, the law should be temporarily blocked.
As we’ve reported, other judges have also ruled in favor of other states’ voter ID laws. Here’s a run
down of the rulings.
The DOJ is also investigating many of the states’ laws, including Pennsylvania's photo ID law. As first reported by Talking Points Memo, the DOJ's Civil Rights Division sent the state's chief election official a letter Monday afternoon requesting 16 separate items, including the state's complete voter registration list, any documents supporting the governor's prior assurance that "99 percent" of the state's eligible voters already have acceptable photo ID, any papers to prove the state is prepared to provide registered voters with ID cards free of charge upon oath or affirmation, and any studies that inform state officials of the "demographic characteristics" of residents who lack valid voter ID.
The DOJ letter states it needs these documents within 30 days to evaluate the state's compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

Have any states attempted to enact strict voter ID laws but so far been unsuccessful?
Yes. In Wisconsin, two judges have blocked enforcement of the state's photo ID law. The state attorney general has asked the Wisconsin Supreme Court to intervene and reinstate the law before the November election. Meantime, Democratic governors in Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire and North Carolina have vetoed strict photo ID bills passed by their Republican-led legislatures last year.

Are there other voter ID laws in effect that ask for but don't necessarily require photo ID?
Yes. In these so-called "non-strict photo ID states" — Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Idaho, South Dakota and Hawaii — individuals are requested to show photo ID but can still vote if they don't have one. Instead, they may be asked to sign affidavits affirming their identity or provide a signature that will be compared with those in registration records.

Why has there been such a recent surge in voter ID legislation around the country?
This report by NYU's Brennan Center for Justice cites primarily big Republican gains in the 2010 midterms which turned voter ID laws into a "major legislative priority." Aside from Rhode Island, all voter ID legislation has been introduced by Republican-majority legislatures.
News21 also has this report on the close affiliation between the bills’ sponsors and the conservative nonprofit group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
Republican figures have championed such laws. For instance, Mike Turzai, majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, recently praised the state's legislative accomplishments at a Republican State Committee meeting last month. "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," he said.
A spokesman for Turzai, Steve Miskin, told ProPublica that Turzai was "mischaracterized" by the press. "For the first time in many years, you're going to have a relatively level playing field in the presidential elections" as the result of these new laws," Miskin said. "With all things equal, a Republican presidential nominee in Pennsylvania has a chance."

Correction August 20, 2012: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated “voting law advocates contend these laws disproportionately affect elderly, minority and low-income groups that tend to vote Democratic.” It’s voting law opponents who make that contention.

Correction July 24, 2012: An earlier version of this story said Texas went to federal court to challenge the DOJ’s denial of preclearance. In fact, Texas filed a lawsuit seeking preclearance from the federal district court two months before the DOJ announced its decision. Also, some states require a government-issued photo that does not have to come from the federal government as first detailed.

Voter ID Requirements Currently in Effect Strict Photo Photo Non-Photo No Voter ID Law On this page State Requirements for Voter ID 2012 Legislative Action 2011 Legislative Action Legislative Action, 2003-2010 Recent Litigation  Details of Voter ID Requirements For More Information  PLEASE NOTE:  IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO SEE THE INTERACTIVE MAP, PLEASE REFER TO THE DETAILED TABLE BELOW.

PLEASE NOTE: Alabama will become a photo ID state in 2014 if its new law receives pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas have new strict photo ID laws which may take effect before November 2012 if they receive pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law was held unconstitutional on March 12, 2012. It could take effect before November 2012 if that ruling is reversed by a higher court. Updated September 5, 2012 Latest News September 4, 2012: The Dept. of Justice granted pre-clearance for New Hampshire's voter ID law. August 30, 2012: A federal district court in Washington, D.C. has denied pre-clearance for Texas's voter ID law. Pre-clearance was denied by the U.S. Dept. of Justice in March 2012 and Texas applied to the court for reconsideration. Any appeal of today's opinion would go to the U.S. Supreme Court. August 22, 2012: The U.S. Department of Justice granted pre-clearance for Virginia's amendment to its voter ID law, meaning it can be used in the November election. Virginia's law is not as strict as the laws that were denied pre-clearance in South Carolina and Texas. August 15, 2012: A State judge upheld Pennsylvania's voter ID law. The case has been appealed to the state supreme court. View the opinion here. June 27, 2012: The New Hampshire General Court overrode a gubernatorial veto of a voter ID bill. The state is subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, so the new voter ID law cannot take effect unless preclearance is granted. It should be noted that New Hampshire's new voter ID law differs in several important ways from the South Carolina and Texas laws rejected by the U.S. Department of Justice in recent months. One important difference is that voters who are unable to present photo ID at the polls will still be allowed to vote after signing an affidavit of identity. March 12, 2012: A state judge ruled Wisconsin's voter ID law unconstitutional (read the opinion). Unless the state succeeds in obtaining an injunction blocking this order, Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law will not be in effect for the April 3 presidential primary. Another state judge had issued a temporary stay in a separate case earlier in March (read the order). March 12, 2012: The U.S. Department of Justice has denied pre-clearance for Texas's new voter ID law, passed in 2011. Texas also filed suit with a three-judge panel seeking pre-clearance; a hearing on that should happen this Wednesday. Read more. Introduction Thirty-one states presently have laws in place that will require all voters to show ID at the polls this November. That number could rise; a total of thirty-three states have passed voter ID laws. Mississippi and Wisconsin presently have no voter ID requirement in place, even though laws have been enacted in both states. In Mississippi's case, the strict photo ID amendment passed by citizen initiative in November 2011 requires both implementing legislation and pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act before it can be implemented. Wisconsin's new strict photo ID law, passed by the legislature in 2011, was briefly in effect in early 2012, but it was declared unconstitutional by a state judge on March 12, 2012. The state is barred from enforcing the law unless an appeal overturns the March 12 ruling. In Alabama, South Carolina and Texas, less-strict voter ID laws that pre-date the strict new laws passed in 2011 remain in effect for now. Alabama's new voter ID law has a 2014 effective date, and requires Section 5 pre-clearance. Texas and South Carolina were denied pre-clearance for their new voter ID laws by the U.S. Department of Justice; as in Alabama, older, non-photo ID laws remain in effect while both states seek a reconsideration of pre-clearance from a federal court. The 33 voter ID laws that have been enacted vary in their details. Two key distinctions are whether a law is strict or not, and whether or not the ID must include a photo. Strict vs. Non-Strict: In the "strict" states, a voter cannot cast a valid ballot without first presenting ID. Voters who are unable to show ID at the polls are given a provisional ballot. Those provisional ballots are kept separate from the regular ballots. If the voter returns to election officials within a short period of time after the election (generally a few days) and presents acceptable ID, the provisional ballot is counted. If the voter does not come back to show ID, that provisional ballot is never counted. Photo vs. Non-Photo: Seventeen states require that the ID presented at the polls must show a photo of the voter. Some of these are "strict" voter ID laws, in that voters who fail to show photo ID are given a provisional ballot and must eventually show photo ID in order to get that provisional ballot counted. Others are "non-strict," and voters without ID have other options for casting a regular ballot. They may be permitted to sign an affidavit of identity, or poll workers may be able to vouch for them if they know them personally. In these "non-strict" states, voters who fail to bring ID on Election Day aren't required to return to election officials and show ID in order to have their ballot counted. In the other 16 voter ID states, there is a wide array of IDs that are acceptable for voting purposes, some of which do not include a photo of the voter. Again, some of these states are "strict" in the sense that a voter who fails to bring ID on Election Day will be required to vote a provisional ballot, and that provisional ballot will be counted only if the voter returns to election officials within a few days to show acceptable ID. For specifics on what forms of identification are acceptable and the options available to voters who cannot present identification, see Table 2 . States that Have Enacted Voter ID Laws Not all of the laws listed below have taken effect. Please see the footnotes for detailed information.   Table 1. State Requirements for Voter Identification States that Request or Require Photo ID States that Require ID (Photo Not Required) Strict Photo ID Georgia Indiana Kansas *Mississippi (6) Pennsylvania **South Carolina (1) Tennessee **Texas (1) *Wisconsin (2) Photo ID **Alabama (1), (5) Florida Hawaii Idaho Louisiana Michigan New Hampshire South Dakota Strict Non-Photo ID Arizona Ohio Virginia Non-Strict Non-Photo ID Alaska Arkansas Colorado Connecticut Delaware Kentucky Missouri Montana North Dakota Oklahoma (3) Rhode Island (4) Utah Washington  * New voter ID law has not yet been implemented; state presently has no voter ID law in effect. ** New voter ID law has not yet been implemented; an older voter ID law remains in effect. (1) In Alabama, South Carolina and Texas, current non-photo voter ID laws stay in effect for the time being.  The new photo voter ID requirements will take effect after receiving preclearance  under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. South Carolina and Texas were denied pre-clearance in December 2011 and March 2012, respectively. Alabama's new photo ID law has a 2014 effective date, and the state has not yet applied for pre-clearance. (2) Wisconsin's voter ID law was declared unconstitutional on March 12, 2012. Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the law, which the state has said it will appeal. (3) There are some who prefer to call Oklahoma a photo voter ID state, because most voters will show a photo ID before voting.  However, Oklahoma law also permits a voter registration card issued by the appropriate county elections board to serve as proof of identity in lieu of photo ID. (4) Rhode Island's voter ID law takes effect in two stages. The first stage, requiring a non-photo ID, took effect on January 1, 2012. On January 1, 2014, a photo ID requirement will replace the non-photo ID law. (5) Alabama's new photo ID requirement takes effect with the 2014 statewide primary election. The new law also requires preclearance. The delayed implementation date was intended to ensure that the timing of preclearance did not occur between the primary and general elections of 2012, thus creating voter confusion. (6) Mississippi's new voter ID law was passed via the citizen initiative process. It takes effect 30 days after the certification of results, a date that will likely fall in late December 2011 or early January 2012. However, the language in constitutional amendment passed by MS voters on Nov. 8 is very general, and implementing legislation will be required before the amendment can take effect. The MS provision will also require pre-clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act before it can take effect. 2012 Legislative Action Voter ID continues to be a high-profile issue in many state legislatures this year. This year, legislation was introduced in 32 states. That includes new voter ID proposals in 14 states, proposals to strengthen existing voter ID laws in ten states, and bills in nine states to amend the new voter ID laws passed in 2011. New voter ID laws were passed in four states -- Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Minnesota's law requires voter approval in November 2012 and enabling legislation before it can take effect. Learn more about voter ID legislation introduced in 2012. 2011 Legislative Action Voter ID was the hottest topic of legislation in the field of elections in 2011, with legislation introduced in 34 states.  There were just three states--Oregon, Vermont and Wyoming--that didn't have a voter ID law and didn't consider voter ID legislation that year. The voter ID legislation under consideration fell into two general categories:  proposals for new voter ID laws in states that didn't already require voter ID at the polls (considered in 20 states), and proposals to strengthen existing voter ID requirements in order to require photo ID at the polls (considered in 14 states). Learn more about voter ID legislation introduced in 2011. 2003-2012 Legislative Action Voter ID has been a hot topic in state legislatures over the past decade.  Since 2001, nearly 1,000 bills have been introduced in a total of 46 states.  Twenty-four states have passed major legislation during the period 2003-2012 (not including gubernatorial vetoes in five states in 2011), and those bills are summarized in the timeline below. 2003:  New voter ID laws were passed in Alabama, Colorado, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota 2005:  New voter ID laws were passed in Indiana, New Mexico and Washington; Georgia tightened an existing voter ID law to require photo ID 2006:  New voter ID law passed in Ohio; Georgia passed a law providing for the issuance of voter ID cards at no cost to registered voters who do not have a driver's license or state-issued ID card; Missouri tightened an existing voter ID law to require photo ID 2008:  New Mexico relaxed an existing voter ID law, and now allows a voter to satisfy the ID requirement by stating his/her name, address as registered, and year of birth 2009:  New voter ID law passed in Utah 2010:  New voter ID law passed in Idaho; Oklahoma voters approved a voter ID proposal placed on the ballot by the Legislature 2011:  New voter ID laws passed in Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Wisconsin.  Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas tightened existing voter ID laws to require photo ID (new laws in Texas and South Carolina are on hold pending USDOJ preclearance). Governors in Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire and North Carolina vetoed strict new photo ID laws in 2011. 2012: Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Virginia passed new voter ID laws. Recent Litigation Arizona:  On October 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an October 6, 2006 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that suspended Arizona’s requirements pending further litigation.  The ID law was in effect for Arizona's 2006 election, and remained in effect in 2008. Georgia:  On October 27, 2006, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction barring Georgia from enforcing its photo ID law.  The injunction was issued a week earlier by a U.S. District Court judge.  Georgia's voter ID requirement was reinstated by a federal judge in mid-2007. Indiana:  Photo ID law was upheld by 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on January 4, 2007.  The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling on appeal in April 2008. Michigan:  The Michigan Supreme Court ruled July 18, 2007 that a voter ID law originally passed in 1996 (but never implemented due to a ruling by the state's Attorney General) is constitutional and enforceable. Missouri:  On October 16, 2006, the Missouri State Supreme Court struck down the state’s photo ID requirement.  ID is still required to vote, but the list of acceptable forms of ID is much broader and includes some forms without a photo. Ohio:  On November 1, 2006, the secretary of state issued an order suspending the requirement that voters present photo ID at the polls for the November 2006 election.  The order did not apply to future elections, and voter ID requirements were in effect for 2008. Wisconsin:   A state judge ruled the voter ID law unconstitutional on March 12, 2012. An appeal is expected. Details of Voter Identification Requirements   Table 2: Details of Voter Identification Requirements   State Requirement Acceptable Forms of ID Voters Without ID Alabama §17-9-30   NOTE:  AL's new photo ID law is scheduled to take effect for the 2014 primary election. It also requires preclearance by the USDOJ. Existing Law: Each elector shall provide identification to an appropriate election official prior to voting. New Law: Each elector shall provide valid photo identification to an appropriate election official prior to voting. Existing Law: Government-issued photo ID U.S. passport U.S. military ID Employee ID card with photo Alabama college/university ID with photo Alabama hunting or fishing license Alabama gun permit FAA-issued pilot's license Birth certificate (certified copy) Social security card Naturalization document Court record of adoption or name change Medicaid or Medicare card Electronic benefits transfer card Utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document showing name and address of voter New Law: Valid Alabama driver's license or non-driver ID card Valid photo voter ID card or other valid ID card issued by any state or the federal government , as long as it contains a photo Valid U.S. passport Valid government employee ID card with a photo Valid student or employee ID card issued by a college or university in the state, provided it includes a photo Valid U.S. military ID card containing a photo Valid tribal ID card containing a photo Existing Law: Vote a challenged or provisional ballot or vote, if s/he is identified by two poll workers as an eligible a voter on the poll list, and both poll workers sign the voting sign-in register by the voter’s name. New Law: Vote a provisional ballot or vote a regular ballot if s/he is identified by two election officials as an eligible voter on the poll list, and both election workers sign a sworn affidavit so stating. Alaska §15.15.225 Before being allowed to vote, each voter shall exhibit to an election official one form of identification. Official voter registration card Driver's license Birth certificate Passport Hunting or fishing license Current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document with the voter’s name and address An election official may waive the identification requirement if the election official knows the identity of the voter. A voter who cannot exhibit a required form of identification shall be allowed to vote a questioned ballot. Arizona §16-579(A)   Every qualified elector shall present one form of identification that bears the name, address and photograph of the elector or two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector.  Valid Arizona driver's license Valid Arizona non-driver identification Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification Valid U.S. federal, state or local government issued identification Utility bill dated within 90 days of the election Bank or credit union statement dated within 90 days of the election Valid Arizona vehicle registration Indian census card Property tax statement Vehicle insurance card Recorder’s Certificate An elector who does not provide the required identification shall receive a provisional ballot. Provisional ballots are counted only if the elector provides identification to the county recorder by 5pm on the fifth business day after a general election that includes an election for federal office, or by 5pm on the third business day after any other election. Arkansas §7-5-305 Election officials shall request the voter to provide identification Current and valid photo ID Copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter If a voter is unable to provide this identification, the election official shall indicate on the precinct voter registration list that the voter did not provide identification. Following each election, the county board of election commissioners may review the precinct voter registration lists and may provide the information of the voters not providing identification at the polls to the prosecuting attorney, who may investigate possible voter fraud. Colorado §1-1-104(19.5) and 1-7-110 Any eligible elector desiring to vote shall show his or her identification as defined in section 1-1-104 (19.5). Colorado driver's license CO Dept. of Revenue ID card U.S. passport Employee ID card with photo issued by the U.S. government, CO state government, or political subdivision of CO Pilot’s license U.S. military ID with photo A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector Medicare or Medicaid card Certified copy of birth certificate Certified documentation of naturalization An eligible elector who is unable to produce identification may cast a provisional ballot.  The designated election official shall attempt to verify that an elector who cast a provisional ballot is eligible to vote. The designated election official or designee shall complete the preliminary verification of the elector's eligibility to vote before the ballot is counted. (§1-8.5-105) Connecticut §9-261 Each elector shall present identification Social security card Any other preprinted form of identification which shows the elector's name and either the elector's address, signature or photograph Elector shall, on a form prescribed by the Secretary of the State, write the elector's residential address and date of birth, print the elector's name and sign a statement under penalty of false statement that the elector is the elector whose name appears on the official checklist. Delaware Tit. 15, §4937 A voter, upon entering the room where an election is being held, shall announce his or her name and address and provide proof of identity Photo ID Utility bill Paycheck Any government document with voter’s name and address In the event the voter does not have proof of identity with them, he or she shall sign an affidavit of affirmation that he or she is the person listed on the election district record. Florida §101.043 The clerk or inspector shall require each elector, upon entering the polling place, to present a current and valid picture identification as provided in s. 97.0535(3)(a). If the picture identification does not contain the signature of the voter, an additional identification that provides the voter's signature shall be required. Florida driver's license Florida ID card issued by the Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles U.S. passport Debit or credit card Military identification Student identification Retirement center identification Neighborhood association ID Public assistance identification If the elector fails to furnish the required identification, the elector shall be allowed to vote a provisional ballot. The canvassing board shall determine the validity of the ballot by determining whether the elector is entitled to vote at the precinct where the ballot was cast and that the elector had not already cast a ballot in the election. Florida uses signature matching: the voter signs the provisional ballot envelope. That signature is compared to the signature in the voter registration records. If they match, the ballot is counted. Georgia §21-2-417 Each elector shall present proper identification to a poll worker at or prior to completion of a voter's certificate at any polling place and prior to such person's admission to the enclosed space at such polling place. Georgia driver’s license, even if expired ID card issued by the state of Georgia or the federal government Free voter ID card issued by the state or county U.S. passport Valid employee ID card containing a photograph from any branch, department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority or other entity of this state Valid U.S. military identification card Valid tribal photo ID If you show up to vote and you do not have one of the acceptable forms of photo identification, you can still vote a provisional ballot.  You will have up to three days after the election to present appropriate photo identification at your county registrar's office in order for your provisional ballot to be counted.   Hawaii §11-136 Every person shall provide identification if so requested by a precinct official. Pollworkers request photo ID with a signature. Acceptable types of ID are not specified by law. If the voter has no identification, the voter will be asked to recite his/her date of birth and residence address to corroborate the information provided in the poll book. Idaho §34-1106(2), 34-1113, 34-1114 Each elector shall show a valid photo identification or personal identification affidavit. Idaho driver's license Idaho ID card Passport ID card, including a photo, issued by an agency of the U.S. government Tribal ID card, including a photograph Student ID card, including a photograph, issued by a high school or accredited institution of higher education within the state of Idaho A voter may complete an affidavit in lieu of the personal identification. The affidavit shall be on a form prescribed by the secretary of state and shall require the voter to provide the voter's name and address. The voter shall sign the affidavit. Any person who knowingly provides false, erroneous or inaccurate information on such affidavit shall be guilty of a felony. Indiana §3-5-2-40.5, 3-10-1-7.2 and 3-11-8-25.1 A voter who desires to vote an official ballot at an election shall provide proof of identification. A voter who votes in person at a precinct polling place that is located at a state licensed care facility where the voter resides is not required to provide proof of identification before voting in an election. Specific forms of ID are not listed in statute. ID must be issued by the state of Indiana or the U.S. government and must show the following: Name of individual to whom it was issued, which must conform to the individual's registration record Photo of the person to whom it was issued Expiration date (if it is expired, it must have an expiration date after the most recent general election; military IDs are exempted from the requirement that ID bear an expiration date) Must be issued by the United States or the state of Indiana Voters who are unable or decline to produce proof of identification may vote a provisional ballot. The ballot is counted only if (1) the voter returns to the election board by noon on the Monday after the election and: (A) produces proof of identification; or (B) executes an affidavit stating that the voter cannot obtain proof of identification, because the voter: (i) is indigent; or (ii) has a religious objection to being photographed; and (2) the voter has not been challenged or required to vote a provisional ballot for any other reason. Kansas §25-2908, 25-1122, 25-3002, and 8-1324(g)(2) Each person desiring to vote shall provide a valid form of identification. The following are exempted from the ID requirement: persons with a permanent physical disability that makes it impossible for them to travel to obtain voting identification and who have permanent advance voting status members of the merchant marine and uniformed service members who are on active duty and absent from the county on election day, as well as their spouses and dependents any voter whose religious beliefs prohibit photographic identification The following forms of identification are valid if they contain the name and photograph of the voter and have not expired. Expired documents are valid if the bearer is aged 65 or older. Driver's license issued by Kansas or another state State identification card Government-issued concealed carry handgun or weapon license U.S. passport Employee badge or identification document issued by a government office or agency Military ID Student ID issued by an accredited postsecondary institution in Kansas Government-issued public assistance ID card A voter who is unable or refuses to provide current and valid identification may vote a provisional ballot. In order to have his or her ballot counted, the voter must provide a valid form of identification to the county election officer in person or provide a copy by mail or electronic means before the meeting of the county board of canvassers.  Kentucky §117.227 Election officers shall confirm the identity of each voter by personal acquaintance or by a document. Driver’s license Social Security card Credit card When the officers of an election disagree as to the qualifications of a voter or if his right to vote is disputed by a challenger, the voter shall sign a written oath as to his qualifications before he is permitted to vote. Louisiana §18:562 Each applicant shall identify himself, in the presence and view of the bystanders, and present identification to the commissioners. Louisiana driver’s license Louisiana special ID card Other generally recognized picture identification If the applicant does not have identification, s/he shall sign an affidavit to that effect before the commissioners, and the applicant shall provide further identification by presenting his current registration certificate, giving his date of birth or providing other information stated in the precinct register that is requested by the commissioners.  However, an applicant that is allowed to vote without the picture identification required by this Paragraph is subject to challenge as provided in R.S. 18:565. Michigan §168.523 Each voter must show a photo ID or sign an affidavit attesting that he or she is not in possession of photo identification. Michigan driver's license Michigan personal identification card A voter who does not possess either of the above may show any of the following, as long as they are current: Driver's license or personal identification card issued by another state Federal or state government-issued photo ID U.S. passport Military ID with photo Student ID with photo -- from a high school or accredited institution of higher education Tribal ID with photo   An individual who does not possess, or did not bring to the polls, photo ID, may sign an affidavit and vote a regular ballot. Mississippi §23-15-563 Mississippi's voter ID law  requires USDOJ pre-clearance before it can take effect. An elector who votes in person in a primary or general election shall present government-issued photo identification before being allowed to vote. Voters who live and vote in a state-licensed care facility are exempt. Mississippi's new constitutional amendment simply says "government-issued photo identification." Implementing legislation and/or administrative rules will be necessary to define precisely what this means. An individual without ID can cast an affidavit ballot which will be counted if the individual returns to the appropriate circuit clerk within five days after the election and shows government-issued photo ID. Voters with a religious objection to being photographed may vote an affidavit ballot, which will be counted if the voter returns to the appropriate circuit clerk within five days after the election and executes an affidavit that the religious exemption applies. Missouri §115-427 Before receiving a ballot, voters shall establish their identify and eligibility to vote at the polling place by presenting a form of personal identification. Identification issued by the federal government, state of Missouri, an agency of the state, or a local election authority; Identification issued by Missouri  institution of higher education, including a univeristy, college, vocational and technical school; A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check or other government document that contains the name and address of the voter; Driver's license or state identification card issued by another state. If an individual does not possess any of these forms of identification, s/he may still cast a ballot if two supervising election judges, one from each major political party, attest they know the person. Montana §13-13-114 Before an elector is permitted to receive a ballot or vote, the elector shall present to an election judge a current photo identification showing the elector's name.  If the elector does not present photo identification the elector shall present one of several specified documents showing the elector’s name and current address. Driver’s license School district or postsecondary education photo identification Tribal photo identification Current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, notice of confirmation of voter registration, government check, or other government document that shows the elector's name and current address If the identification presented is insufficient to verify the elector's identity and eligibility to vote or if the elector's name does not appear in the precinct register, the elector may sign the precinct register and cast a provisional ballot. Montana uses signature verification to verify the eligibility of provisional ballots. If the voter's signature on the provisional ballot affirmation matches the signature on the voter's registration record, the ballot is counted. (§13-15-107(2))   New Hampshire §659:13   The ballot clerk shall request that the voter present a valid photo identification. If the voter does not have a valid photo identification, the ballot clerk shall inform the voter that he or she may execute a qualified voter affidavit. Through August 30, 2013: A driver's license from NH or any other state, regardless of expiration date A photo ID card issued by the NH director of motor vehicles A voter ID card issued under R.S. 260:21 A U.S. armed services photo ID card A U.S. passport, regardless of expiration date A valid student ID card Any other valid photo ID issued by federal, state, county or municipal government Any other photo ID that is determined to be legitimate by the supervisors of the checklist, the moderator, or the town or city clerk, provided that if any person authorized to challenge a voter under RSA 659:27 objects to the use of such photo identification, the voter shall be required to execute a qualified voter affidavit as if no identification was presented. Beginning September 1, 2013, the following IDs will be accepted if the name on the ID is substantially similar to that on the voter registration record and the expiration date does not exceed five years: A driver's license from any state A non-driver ID issued by the motor vehicle agency of any state A U.S. armed services ID card A U.S. passport A person’s identity may be verified by a moderator or supervisor of the checklist or the town or city clerk, but if any person authorized to challenge a voter under RSA 659:27 objects to such verification, the voter shall be required to execute a challenged voter affidavit. If a voter does not have a valid photo identification, the ballot clerk shall inform the voter that he or she may execute a qualified voter affidavit. The voter may then cast a regular ballot. Within 60 days after the election, the secretary of state is required to mail a non-forwardable letter to each voter who executed a qualified voter affidavit, notifying the person that a person who did not present valid photo identification voted using his or her name and address and instruct the person to return the letter within 90 days with a written confirmation that the person voted or to contact the attorney general immediately if he or she did not vote. Any such letters returned as undeliverable must be turned over to the attorney general, who shall investigate for voter fraud. Notice from any voter receiving such a letter that s/he did not vote is also forwarded to the attorney general for investigation. The secretary must also turn over to the attorney general a list of all voters who fail to respond to the letter to confirm that they voted. North Dakota §16.1-05-07 Before delivering a ballot to an individual, the poll clerks shall request the individual to show identification.   Valid driver's license or state ID card Valid passport or federal agency ID card Valid government-issued tribal ID card Valid student ID card Valid U.S. military ID card Utility bill dated 30 days prior to election day with name and residential address Change of address verification letter from U.S. Postal Service If an individual offering to vote does not have or refuses to show an appropriate form of identification, the individual may be allowed to vote without being challenged if a pollworker is able to vouch for the voter's identity and address. Otherwise, the individual may vote as a challenged voter by executing an affidavit that the challenged individual is a legally qualified elector of the precinct. Ohio §3503.16(B)(1)(a) and 3505.18(A)(1) All voters must provide to election officials at the polling place on the day of an election proof of the voter's identity. Also applies to voters requesting and voting an absentee ballot. Current and valid photo identification, defined as a document that shows the individual’s name and current address, includes a photograph, includes an expiration date that has not passed, and was issued by the U.S. government or the state of Ohio Current utility bill Current bank statement Current government check, paycheck or other government document A voter who has but declines to provide identification may cast a provisional ballot upon providing a social security number or the last four digits of a social security number. A voter who has neither identification nor a social security number may execute an affidavit to that effect and vote a provisional ballot. A voter who declines to sign the affidavit may still vote a provisional ballot. Voters who cast a provisional ballot because they did not provide acceptable proof of identity must appear in person at the board of elections to provide such proof within the 10 days immediately following Election Day. (see the Ohio Secretary of State's FAQ on provisional voting) Oklahoma 26 O.S. 2001, §7-114 Each person appearing to vote shall provide proof of identity. "Proof of identity" shall mean a document that satisfies the following: Shows a name that substantially conforms to the name in the precinct registry Shows a photograph Includes an expiration date that is after the date of the election Was issued by the United States, state of Oklahoma, or a federally recognized Indian tribe or nation A voter registration card issued by the appropriate county elections board may serve as proof of identity without meeting all of the above requirements. A person who declines or is unable to produce proof of identity may sign a statement under oath swearing or affirming that the person is the person identified on the precinct registry and cast a provisional ballot. Information provided by a person who votes a provisional ballot shall be investigated by the secretary of the county election board after the election. A provisional ballot shall be counted only if it is cast in the precinct of the voter’s residence and if evidence of the provisional voter’s valid voter registration, or of the voter’s identity, is found. (§26-7-116.1) From the State Election Board's website: After election day, County Election Board officials will investigate the information provided by the voter on the affidavit and either will approve the provisional ballot for counting or will reject it based on the outcome of that investigation. In order for a provisional ballot to be approved for counting, the information on the affidavit must match the information in the voter's registration record. Pennsylvania Each elector who appears to vote and desires to vote shall present proof of identification. Identification must satisfy the following: Shows the name of the individual, which must substantially conform to the individual's name on the precinct register Show a photograph of the individual to whom it was issued Be issued by the U.S. government, Commonwealth of PA, a municipality of the Commonwealth to an employee of the municipality, an accredited PA private or public institution of higher learning or a PA care facility Include an expiration date and not be expired (exception for a military ID with an indication that it has an indefinite expiration date or a PA driver's license or non-driver ID card that is not more than 12 months past the expiration date) A voter who is indigent an unable to obtain ID without any payment or fee, or who is otherwise unable to obtain ID, may vote a provisional ballot. A voter who casts a provisional ballot because he or she is unable to provide proof of identification must execute an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and do one of the following within six calendar days after the election: Appear in person at the county board of elections to complete the affirmation and present proof of identification; Submit an electronic, facsimile or paper copy of the affirmation and the proof of identification. A voter who is indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without payment of a fee must submit an affirmation that he or she is the same person who appeared to vote on election day and that he or she is indigent in the same time frame and manner as described above. Rhode Island §17-19-24.2 NOTE:  RI's new voter ID law takes effect in two stages. The first stage took effect on Jan. 1, 2012. The second stage will require photo ID beginning Jan. 1, 2014. Any person claiming to be a registered and eligible voter who desires to vote at a primary, special or general election shall provide proof of identity. Effective January 1, 2012: A valid and current document showing a photo of the person to whom it was issued, including: RI driver's license RI voter identification card U.S. passport Identification card issued by a U.S. educational institution U.S. military identification card Identification card issued by the U.S. government or state of RI Government-issued medical card The following forms of ID will be acceptable until January 1, 2014, when only the photo IDs listed above will be accepted for voting. A valid and current document without a photograph, including: Birth certificate Social security card Government-issued medical card If the person claiming to be a registered and eligible voter is unable to provide proof of identity as required, the person shall be allowed to vote a provisional ballot pursuant to section 17-19-24.2. The local board shall determine the validity of the provisional ballot pursuant to section 17-19-24.3. Summary of section 17-19-24.3: The local board shall examine each provisional ballot application to determine if the signature matches the signature on the voter's registration.  If the signatures match, the provisional ballot shall count.  If the signatures do not match, the ballot shall not count and shall be rejected as illegal. South Carolina §7-13-710   NOTE:  SC's new photo ID law takes effect after preclearance by the USDOJ. Pre-clearance was denied on Dec. 23, 2011, and the state has applied for reconsideration from the Federal District Court of Washington, D.C. Existing law: When any person presents himself to vote, he shall produce his valid South Carolina driver’s license or other form of identification containing a photograph issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, if he is not licensed to drive, or the written notification of registration. New law: When a person presents himself to vote, he shall produce a valid and current ID.   Existing law: Voter registration certificate South Carolina driver’s license South Carolina Dept. of Motor Vehicles photo ID card New law: South Carolina driver's license Other form of photo ID issued by the SC Dept. of Motor Vehicles Passport Military ID bearing a photo issued by the federal government South Carolina voter registration card with a photo Existing law: Voters without ID may be permitted to vote a provisional ballot.  This varies from county to county. Whether the provisional ballot is counted is at the discretion of the county commissioners at the provisional ballot hearing. New law: If the elector cannot produce identification, he may cast a provisional ballot that is counted only if the elector brings a valid and current photograph identification to the county board of registration and elections before certification of the election by the county board of canvassers. South Dakota §12-18-6.1 and 6.2 When a voter is requesting a ballot, the voter shall present a valid form of personal identification. South Dakota driver’s license or nondriver identification card U.S. passport Photo ID issued by an agency of the U.S. government Tribal ID card, including a photo Student ID card, including a photo, issued by an accredited South Dakota school If a voter is not able to present a form of personal identification as required, the voter may complete an affidavit in lieu of the personal identification.  The affidavit shall require the voter to provide his or her name and address. The voter shall sign the affidavit under penalty of perjury. Tennessee §2-7-112     Each voter shall present to the precinct registrar one form of identification that bears the name and photograph of the voter. TN driver’s license Valid photo ID card issued by any state Valid photo ID license issued by TN Dept. of Safety Valid U.S. passport Valid U.S. military ID with photo If a voter is unable to present the proper evidence of identification, then the voter will be entitled to vote by provisional ballot in the manner detailed in the bill. The provisional ballot will only be counted if the voter provides the proper evidence of identification to the administrator of elections or the administrator's designee by the close of business on the second business day after the election. Texas Election Code §63.001 et seq.   NOTE:  TX's new photo ID law takes effect after preclearance by the USDOJ. Pre-clearance was denied on March 13, 2012, and the state is expected to apply for reconsideration from the Federal District Court of Washington, D.C. Existing law: On offering to vote, a voter must present the voter’s voter registration certificate to an election officer at the polling place. New law: On offering to vote, a voter must present to an election officer at the polling place one form of identification.  Existing law: Voter registration certificate Driver’s license Department of Public Safety ID card A form of ID containing the person’s photo that establishes the person’s identity A birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes the person’s identity U.S. citizenship papers A U.S. passport Official mail addressed to the person, by name, from a governmental entity A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the person’s name and address Any other form of ID prescribed by the secretary of state New law: Driver's license Election identification certificate Dept. of Public Safety personal ID card U.S. military ID U.S. citizenship certificate U.S. passport License to carry a concealed handgun issued by the Dept. of Public Safety All of the above must include a photo of the voter. With the exception of the certificate of citizenship, these forms of ID cannot be expired, or cannot have expired more than 60 days before the election.  Existing law: A voter who does not present a voter registration certificate when offering to vote, but whose name is on the list of registered voters for the precinct in which the voter is offering to vote, shall be accepted for voting if the voter executes an affidavit stating that the voter does not have the voter’s voter registration certificate in the voter’s possession and the voter presents other proof of identification. A voter who does not present a voter registration certificate and cannot present other identification may vote a provisional ballot. A voter who does not present a voter registration certificate and whose name is not on the list of registered voters may vote a provisional ballot. New law: A voter who fails to present the required identification may cast a provisional ballot.  The voter must present, not later than the sixth day after the date of the election, the required form of identification to the voter registrar for examination OR the voter may execute, in the presence of the voter registrar, an affidavit under penalty of perjury stating that the voter has a religious objection to being photographed or that the voter does not have identification as a result of a natural disaster declared by the president or the governor which occurred not earlier than 45 days before the date the ballot was cast.  Utah §20A-1-102(76), 20A-3-104 A voter shall present valid voter identification to one of the poll workers. Current valid UT driver's license Current valid identification card issued by the state or federal government UT concealed weapon permit U.S. passport Current valid U.S. military ID card Bureau of Indian Affairs card Tribal treaty card Tribal ID card OR Two forms of ID that bear the name of the voter and provide evidence that the voter resides in the precinct The voter may cast a provisional ballot as provided by §20A-3-105.5 §20A-4-107 states that a county clerk may verify the identity and residence of a voter who fails to provide valid voter identification "through some other means."   Virginia §24.2-643(B)   The officer shall ask the voter to present any one of the specified forms of identification. Virginia voter registration card Social Security card Valid Virginia driver's license Any other identification card issued by a government agency of the Commonwealth, one of its political subdivisions, or the United States Employee identification card containing a photograph Any valid student ID card issued by any institution of higher education located in Virginia Copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check or paycheck that shows the name and address of the voter Concealed handgun permit Any voter who does not show one of the forms of identification specified in this subsection shall be offered a provisional ballot marked ID-ONLY that requires no follow-up action by the registrar or electoral board other than matching submitted identification documents from the voter for the electoral board to make a determination on whether to count the ballot. In order to have his or her ballot counted, the voter must submit a copy of one of the forms of identification to the electoral board by facsimile, electronic mail, in-person submission, or timely United States Postal Service or commercial mail delivery, to be received by the electoral board no later than noon on the third day after the election. Washington §29A.44.205 Any person desiring to vote at any primary or election is required to provide identification to the election officer before signing the poll book. Valid photo identification, such as a driver's license or state identification card, student identification card, or tribal identification card A voter identification issued by a county elections officer, or A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or government check or other government document Any individual who desires to vote in person but cannot provide identification as required by this section shall be issued a provisional ballot. Wisconsin §5.02(6m) and 6.79(2)(a) NOTE:  Wisconsin's voter ID law was held unconstitutional on March 12, 2012 by a state judge. It is not currently in effect.  Each elector shall be required to present identification. Wisconsin driver's license ID card issued by a U.S. uniformed service Wisconsin non-driver ID U.S. Passport Certificate of naturalization issued not more than 2 years before the election ID card issued by a federally recognized Indian tribe in WI Student ID card with a signature, an issue date, and an expiration date no later than 2 years after the election All of the above must include a photo and a name that conforms to the poll list. If the ID presented is not proof of residence,the elector shall also present proof of residence. An elector who appears to vote at a polling place and does not have statutory ID shall be offered the opportunity to vote a provisional ballot. An elector who votes a provisional ballot may furnish statutory ID to the election inspectors before the polls close or to the municipal clerk no later than 4pm on the Friday following Election Day. For More Information For more information on the issue of voter identification, contact NCSL's elections staff.