It seems obvious that tough ID requirements and short voting periods in Republican-led states are meant to depress voter turnout, which supposedly helps Republicans. (Although not long ago, there was no such thing as early voting or voting by mail, meaning their absence is not exactly “unfair,” unless elections for the previous 200 years were unfair.) And although blacks and Latinos might be disproportionately affected by the new restraints simply because they are more likely to be poor and to struggle to acquire an ID or make it to the polls, the laws do not, on their face, discriminate by race. Democrats also say there is no need for voter ID in the absence of obvious fraud.

Between these two positions, there is a compromise, and it takes the shape of a constitutional amendment. In truth, it wouldn’t be hard to write one that would please both sides.

AD

AD

Any mediator will tell you that the best way to approach a disagreement is to ascertain what each side really desires. Republicans say they wish to prevent voter fraud and save state taxpayer money. Democrats say they wish to make it as easy as possible for qualified people to vote. Here is a potential solution that strives to achieve all of the major goals. A new constitutional amendment might state:

Citizens hold the right to cast their ballots in a national election for a period of seven days, concluding with the first Tuesday in November. A state may extend to an earlier date this voting period. A voter must show a valid identification document in order to vote, but each state must provide a voter with a reminder, when registering to vote, of the identification requirement. Each state must make available, without charge at registration, an identification document for its citizens. The federal government will reimburse states for the costs of the identification documents and for the costs of operating the polling places during the seven-day voting period.

Successful government projects, from the Affordable Care Act, to clean water regulation, to public housing, follow a formula of “cooperative federalism” between national and state authorities. The federal government, with its wide powers of taxation and enormous budget, ponies up the cash, while state and local governments retain some discretion in the details. Law gives states the power to vary from a national norm, both to allow for a state’s particular interests and to give people a sense that they are dealing with a government near to them.

Under this new system, states that wish to be relatively tight with their voter requirements (probably Republican ones) would meet the national minimum and no more. They would be required to provide free ID cards at registration and then enforce the ID requirement at the polls to protect against fraud. They also would have to allow voting for a full week. Then, they would send a bill to the federal government for the cost of the program. States would be prevented from gouging Uncle Sam by maximum reimbursement rules, probably based on the number of voters (like the rules under Medicare and a host of other government programs).

AD

AD

On the other hand, states that prefer looser voting laws (probably Democratic ones) could pay more from their own coffers to offer more days of voting. These states also could spend state money to educate voters about the importance of remembering their free IDs at the polls and to help pay for van rides and the like to help the elderly and disabled get to the polls.

By this system of federalism, we would ensure that voter identity fraud would be extremely difficult and that people wouldn’t be turned away from the voting booths because they can’t afford a driver’s license. Yes, this isn’t a simple solution. It’s difficult to adopt any constitutional amendment; truly partisan Republicans may dislike any system that eases voting; truly diehard Democrats may oppose any ID requirement; the federal government would need to find the money.