I think it's Quebec, not Ontario. And I'm Canadian and have never had to show my photo id to vote so I'm confused as to where all this is coming from.

ooh, sorry the article said both, and I figured it was the whole of Ontario. Will change.

Last time I voted in the US I had to show ID.

I actually support verifying ID to avoid fraud, but I think that accomodations where a woman is checking ID and they can remove their veils in private would be fair.

I've always had to show my ID. Isn't that how cities make sure that dead people don't vote? I thought that was the whole point behind the motor-voter bill? Last time, just to make sure, my committee person said we should bring two forms of ID.

California voter here, have ALWAYS shown id -- driver's license sufficient. They were more concerned with matching addresses, though.

I fairly sure I've had to show ID, but I'm honestly not positive. I've also voted in 3 different states so it may just be that one did, but the others did not.

I seriously don't remember ever showing picture ID.

I could be wrong, but I believe it's against the law to require ID in the US. It places a burden on the poor to put forth the money to acquire a state ID or driver's license, and that's against the law.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets003557.shtml

"Georgia Voting Photo Id Requirement Found to be an Undue Burden and a Poll Tax"

Poll tax is definitely illegal.

I could be wrong, but I believe it's against the law to require ID in the US. It places a burden on the poor to put forth the money to acquire a state ID or driver's license, and that's against the law.

http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/packets003557.shtml

"Georgia Voting Photo Id Requirement Found to be an Undue Burden and a Poll Tax"

Poll tax is definitely illegal.

I do know that a lot of places DO require ID-- that was part of the huge scandal with Ohio voting in 2004, right? The law states that people without ID should be able to put in a preliminary vote to be verified later, but instead people were just turned away. This is important because low-income individuals-- and by proxy, a significant number of people of color-- are the least likely to have photo ID, and requiring it can literally result in being disenfranchised.

Sorry, I'm way too busy and lazy right not to look up references, so that comes from memory. If I got something wrong about the Ohio circumstances, please feel free to correct me.

I live in British Columbia, Canada, and I have always had to show I.D.

I'm pretty sure the Canadian law doesn't require photo ID; I've voted (in Ontario) without doing so.

My understanding is that that's why this is so silly (and I'm guessing racially motiveated); the Elections Canada officer is just enforcing the law as it's written, and it doesn't require photo ID. You can have alternate ID with an address (or mail if I'm remembering right) or you can have someone vouch for you.

The Elections Canada requirements can be found at http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=ele&dir=2007/ids&document=index&lang=e&textonly=false. I think its key that you are asked to provide identity (through identification or through having someone identify you) but nowhere does it say anything about visual matching or identity. Its also noteable that Canadians who do not live in Canada are able to vote and again identification is required, but visual matching is not (for obvious reasons).

Regardless of where ID is required to vote and where it isn't, I really don't see this as an issue of religious discrimination. If there is a law in place saying that you need to show ID in order to vote, forcing someone to show his or her face to confirm identity is not a matter of religion. If I decided that I wanted to cover my face at all times for reasons other than religion, would it be right for me to be forced to anyway? Yes! So why is the religious reason justified and mine not? Making religious exceptions to laws is a very dangerous matter and it is a slippery slope. It is not discrimination, because no person would be admitted to vote without confirming their identity, not only members of one group. Now, if such a law were put in place with the motive of keeping veiled women (mostly muslim women) from voting, then that is a different story and the law probably shouldn't exist at all. And I don't believe that this one was. Voter fraud is extremely widespread; very little keeps someone from registering dead or even fake people to vote.

I have to say I don't see the religious discrimination. If there is a law requiring everyone to prove their identity with photo ID to vote, then why should anyone be excused from this law because of their religious beliefs? I hate this phrase, but I think that could qualify as getting special treatment for religion. The law as is treats everyone the same; everyone has to show ID and their face. It's fair. Allowing women to do it privately and only before other women would be a nice compromise to extend, but I am a firm believer that in general the law should be as separate from religion as possible.

Very well put, VeriteBlesse. You said exactly what I attempted to, only you articulated it much better! I completely agree with the "special treatment" wording. We can't sacrifice the separation of law and religion because we fear APPEARING intolerant.

Last I read, no one had even asked for any kind of "accommodations" for women who wear veils at the polls. Mayrand's ruling came kind of out of nowhere.

In the last federal election I was a polling clerk, and we didn't have to ask anyone for ID, unless they weren't on our list of voters. Then they had to go register at another table, with ID and proof of residence.

I've been reading this blog for awhile, but finally got a Typekey ID to post...

I live in British Columbia, Canada, and have done a lot of work on municipal, provincial, and federal elections - some of this work included assisting the street-involved and homeless poulation in voting.

You are NOT legally required to have photo ID to vote in a BC or Canadian election (can't speak for the other provinces). You do not even have to have an address. This is the info we have posted on it on the BC Coalition of Women's Centres' website:

BC Elections:
http://www3.telus.net/bcwomen/2005bcelec/voting.html

Federal Elections:
http://www3.telus.net/bcwomen/2006fedelec/votinginfo.html

Our information came straight from Elections Canada and Elections BC.

I'm telling you, voting by mail is the best thing that ever happened to my state.

From what I remember, NZ sends out a voter ID card to all registered voters shortly before a national election. You then take that along to the polling booth & they take it off you when they give you your ballot paper (we tick the boxes with a big orange felt tip pen - it's kinda fun).

I was just wondering, off topic slightly, what about banks? There's often signs up saying that you can't wear full-face motorcycle helmets or balaclavas in the bank, what do they do about full veils?

I've worked in the Ontario municipal elections and you do no need ID if your name is on the list at your voting station. If you pay taxes, you will be on the list.
Not on the list? Be it you just moved or something else, you need ID and something confirming your new address.
Don't have that? You have to swear that you are who you are and live where you live.
Voting is a right remember!

I've had to show ID in New York, Wisconsin, and California.

This seemed like a pretty fair compromise between respecting religious traditions and preventing voter fraud:

From the article: "Liberal leader Stephan Dion, by way of compromise, called on Elections Canada to have female officials on hand at voting booths to verify identification and ensure the religious values and privacy of Muslim women, a position advanced by the Canadian Islamic Congress."

Katie, voter fraud really isn't that widespread at all, at least in the US, and I don't see any reason to believe Canada would be different. I recently attended a seminar on issues surrounding voter registration (the intended audience was state elections officials, so it was a fairly nonpartisan affair), and one of the things that was mentioned was that there were only two prosecutions for vote fraud in the US 2006 elections, despite the fact that the GOP was scrutinizing Democratic-heavy areas for any evidence of fraud.

Contrast that with the hundreds of thousands of people in those elections either turned away or who had to cast provisional ballots (about a quarter of a million provisional ballots were cast in 2006), who never knew whether their votes were counted or not, and who in many cases were casting provisional ballots because they had been improperly and even illegally purged (some states still purge people from the voter rolls for missing a certain number of elections, even though HAVA makes this illegal). Voter fraud is a miniscule problem both in general and compared with the much larger problems of access and especially equality of access to the polling booths.

Republicans like to pretend voter fraud is a huge deal (and they manage to convince a lot of people that it is, because we all know the jokes about dead people voting in Chicago and so on), when really it's just a front to pass restrictive requirements around voting, to make it harder for "the wrong sort of people" to vote.

And it's definitely illegal in the US for photo ID to be required to vote - they can require that you show an 'official' piece of mail (utility bill, etc) with your name and address on it, but if anyone here was asked to show photo ID to vote in the US - those polling workers were breaking the law.

Kia ora from Aotearoa New Zealand. A similar situation arose here a year or so ago - see link:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10006916

Muslim women required to give evidence in a trial had to take off their veils to do so - with some conditions to ensure they felt safe. it's quite a quandary for New Zealanders - we want women to feel safe, want them to be part of a community, want to respect their perspecitves, but consider a burka or equivalent quite extreme - and then, in a trial, we want to see the person's face for all those visual cues to affect and sincerity we're used to interpreting.
I cannot imagine having to sport photo id to vote - voter turnout is low enough as it is, and we've got a moderately high voting rate!

Kia ora from Aotearoa New Zealand. A similar situation arose here a year or so ago - see link:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10006916

Muslim women required to give evidence in a trial had to take off their veils to do so - with some conditions to ensure they felt safe. it's quite a quandary for New Zealanders - we want women to feel safe, want them to be part of a community, want to respect their perspecitves, but consider a burka or equivalent quite extreme - and then, in a trial, we want to see the person's face for all those visual cues to affect and sincerity we're used to interpreting.
I cannot imagine having to sport photo id to vote - voter turnout is low enough as it is, and we've got a moderately high voting rate!

Hi,
It is worth noting that Muslim women /did not ask/ for this. Even Muslim women who are wear the veil, routinely remove it briefly for identification purposes at airports, at border crossings,...

(If you have your voter registration card you do not need ID.)

Chris

Hi,
It is worth noting that Muslim women /did not ask/ for this. Even Muslim women who are wear the veil routinely remove it briefly for identification purposes at airports, at border crossings,...

(If you have your voter card you do not need ID. If you don't, you do is how I remember it.)

Chris

mags, i agree with you on most of what you're saying here. however, the number of prosecutions for voter fraud to me means little as an indicator for how much it actually happens. I think we can see quite clearly from the 2000 and 2004 elections that we aren't in a hurry to find out what really happened in elections and who should/should not have won! Furthermore, I have not said anywhere that I belive IDs should be required for voting. I'm simply saying that if that were the law, it would in no way be a case of religious discrimination if you had to prove that you in fact matched the ID you presented.

Perhaps I can clarify...

During the last federal election, you definitely didn't need photo ID to vote in Canada. You could bring in a piece of mail with your address on it if you weren't on the list.

They recently passed this photo ID regulation, and this is where all the controversy is coming from. Since we haven't had an election since then, it hasn't been an issue during an election yet.

Most burkha-wearing women would definitely be willing to identify themselves to a female elections official, so this is kind of a moot point. But in stereotypical fashion, no one really asked those burkha-wearing Muslim women what they thought about all this. Which is incredibly sad, because this just marginalizes them further as extremists.

ok, so i've never voted (because I'm 23 and have spent 22 years outside of my country of citizenship), but how can they not require ID for you to vote?

Rock Star - I can only tell you about how it works here in N.Z. -
But, prior to the voting day, you must put your name onto the Electoral Roll. You are then sent an "Easy Vote" card, which makes the process easier, but isn't necessary for you to take with you.

On voting day, you go to your voting place (over here they use school halls, town halls, and big indoor space really) and you go up to the nice people and say your name and address. They then cross you off and you go vote.
I guess if someone pretended to be you and got there first they would ask for I.D. at that point, and I'm really not sure what would happen then.

I guess we don't have alot of political corruption to deal with...

voter fraud really isn't that widespread at all, at least in the US, and I don't see any reason to believe Canada would be different.?

That may be true, but we aren't sure.

I live in Montreal, and I believe the new law requiring a photo ID was prompted by a Quebec journalist who registered to vote under several names before a recent election. He didn't actually vote several times, but he showed that he easily could have.

Most people seem to be in favor of such a requirement, and muslim groups here have no problem with it, especially since most muslim countries also require veiled women to unveil to confirm their identity in order to vote.

As is often the case, it's the extremists on both sides making this a story.

Rock Star, it's a good question. I think the requirement for ID can be considered a form of discrimination based on socioeconomic status - it costs money to acquire ID (even to replace a lost birth certificate), and obtaining ID (photo ID in particular) also requires a physical address. Homeless people, as an example, can't meet these requirements, but they still have a legal right to vote. This is part of the reason you can vote (in Canada, anyway) as long as another registered voter comes with you to vouch for you. I feel a government could be legally challenged on the photo ID requirement unless it becomes willing to provide free access to photo ID for every citizen.

Several people have brought up the issue that Muslim women are not the ones making a stink out of this, and that troubles me as a Canadian...it points to a growing hysteria that's being created out of nothing, for the sole purpose of publicly ostracizing a particular group of citizens.

Joining in a bit late - As an Australian, we dont have to show ID, all we have to say is that we have not voted at any other polling station that day (and to be honest who would want to vote more than once- long lines and propaganda machines... i realise there are some corrupt ppl who would....)

"Vote early, vote often."

I don't think that voter fraud should be underplayed, especially considering how Diebold (a company which has been manufacturing new "high tech" computer voting machines which don't leave a paper trail) has been giving significant campaign contributions to Republican candidates.

don't you need an ID to get welfare benefits though?
I see the argument that having an id is discriminatory, but I'm also really keen on avoiding election fraud (which could, and has been, used against liberal causes as well)

"I don't think that voter fraud should be underplayed, especially considering how Diebold (a company which has been manufacturing new "high tech" computer voting machines which don't leave a paper trail) has been giving significant campaign contributions to Republican candidates."

Actually, that's vote fraud, not voter fraud. Voter fraud is when a voter misrepresents herself somehow. Vote fraud is what you're describing, and I agree, that's definitely a problem, and a huge threat to what's left of our democracy!

Dorianne and a few others have brought up a good point, about "a growing hysteria that's being created out of nothing, for the sole purpose of publicly ostracizing a particular group of citizens," directed towards Muslim women/the muslim community.

I have heard a few news reports mention that government may be raising the profile of this ruling to divert attention away from some of the Conservative party's questionable advertising spending in the last election, which Elections Canada is not going to reimburse them for (see here and here for anyone who is interested).

If this is what is happening, I can't say this kerfuffle alleviates political guilt whatsoever - scapegoating Muslim women "for no reason" or "for politically expedient reasons" seems equally reprehensible.

I just wrote a huge blog about this (feministcatalyst.blogspot.com)

However my main concern is the fact that the media is reporting this story but few people actually asked MUSLIM WOMYN what they wanted. And it turns out, Muslim womyn had no issue with the previous law.

"Sarah Elgazzar, spokeswoman with The Council on American Islamic Relations Canada says only a small number of Muslim women wear the niqab or burka, and they have never asked for special treatment, Elgazzar said."

You can find more on the article at CBC.

Basically, my point with this whole issue is white men are speaking on behalf of muslim womyn and assuming (in my opinion anyway) that muslim womyn, especially those who are veiled, as meek and submissive and unable to speak for themselves. When the reality is that they can and they do.

In my opinion, Elections Quebec was just attempting to correct the image of Quebec, because of that huge controversy that happened a few months ago when a small WHITE Quebec town outlawed the wearing of veils. This did not paint Quebec in a good way and every since, they've been trying to back peddle.

Lucretia, you do indeed need ID to qualify for welfare benefits. You also require an address (in Canada - can't speak to other countries). If you are homeless, you are probably not on social assistance. Social assistance will generally help you acquire ID, but many homeless people face other barriers (such as the address issue, having "voluntarily" left a job, benefit time limits, etc.) that do not allow them to qualify for benefits. There are many, many poor people - homeless and otherwise - who do not qualify for welfare benefits under growingly restrictive legislation. In Canada, citizens lost the universal right to income when in need in 1995, with changes to the Canada Health and Social Transfer.

However, even these folks still have a right to vote.

(Just to add: obtaining ID through social assistance is one of the welfare benefits people may not qualify for.)