A Different Take on Vote Fraud

Paul Brewer makes some excellent points:

Fourth, allow that any requirement placed on voters—such as producing an ID—will create at least the possibility for selective enforcement. Selectivity need not be intentional, let alone coordinated. For those who believe that the voting process is so well-governed as to rule this out, I refer you to the report’s account of Election Day chaos. For those who believe that people in authority will never, ever, discriminate on the basis of race, I refer you to the Bratton and Jude cases (and those were much more dramatic instances of discrimination; selective enforcement would merely require repeated but small acts of subtle discrimination on the part of voting officials, acts of which the officials themselves might not even be aware). For those who believe that voter ID will, beyond doubt, be applied with equal scrutiny to city and suburb, I ask that you explain why the vote fraud investigation is only now turning to the suburbs.

He is correct that selective enforcement becomes easier when barriers are added. My only response is that we do need some barriers, or the system would be a total farce. I think we've done reasonably well dealing with problems of potential selective enforcement to this point. If there is a dispute the election board will send a worker to settle it (this was overtaxed last election, but that is a separate issue) and provisional ballots are also an excellent safeguard.

But this issues does require balancing concerns, and I still think that voting in Milwaukee is too easy.