Law Change will require voters to show photo ID

[Baxenden Bank]

An article in The Times yesterday (Friday 19 February 2021) states:

Voters will have to show photo ID at polling stations from 2023 under plans to combat electoral fraud.
Acceptable forms of identification will include library, bus or rail cards that have a photo on them. The proposal, which is part of an Electoral Integrity Bill that will form part of the Queen's speech this spring. (article continues)

Matt Dathan, Home Affairs Editor

I have the article in old fashioned print version and the on-line version is, I assume, behind their paywall.

It includes reference to a quote "Boris Johnson once pledged to eat his ID if he was ever forced to show it by the government". Better make future photo ID out of edible materials then.

This topic has been discussed before, identity-cards thread, I raise it more as a heads up than an opportunity to re-hash the issues. I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else.

 

[The_Train]

The big question here is, does everyone in the UK have photo ID and would it be fair to, in essence, make those without it ineligible to vote?

Also, has electoral fraud ever been a major issue in UK elections? Can't say it is something that I've heard discussed much in previous elections. Is this a case of trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist?

 

[jfollows]

Text of a similar article: (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/voters-will-be-forced-to-show-their-photo-id-9222bbmrw)

Voters will be required to show photo ID before they are allowed to cast their ballot in future elections.

Government plans to introduce changes were confirmed in the Queen’s Speech as Downing Street said it was “entirely right” that the government took “proportionate and reasonable steps” to reduce electoral fraud.

The Electoral Commission said that ID could include passports, driving licences and travel passes. The government said that if people did not have ID their local authority could provide documentation.

In 2015 a report by the Electoral Commission said that 3.5 million UK citizens did not have any photo ID and 11 million did not have a passport or driving licence. Separate figures showed that 76 per cent of white people hold a driving licence, compared with 52 per cent of black people.

Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour leader, called the plan an attempt to “rig the result of the next general election”.

Personally, I don't think electoral fraud is a problem and that, instead, this will disenfranchise proportionally more Labour voters than Conservative voters, as implied by the Electoral Commission report quoted in the article. I would expect significant opposition from the House of Lords to the proposed legislation.

 

[yorksrob]

The notable cases I've read about of electoral fraud have been with postal voting, rather than at the polling station. This sounds like a case of being seen to be doing something.

If they were that worried about fraud at polling stations, why did they cease stamping of ballot papers (this had previously been done when the paper was handed over, to guard against ballot box stuffing).

 

[xotGD]

There are only ever a tiny number of fraudulent votes cast at the polling station.

This change would disenfranchise many more genuine voters than the dodgy votes it will prevent.

Those disenfranchised will predominantly be poorer and younger. I'll let others draw their own conclusions...

 

[TheSel]

You already have to show photo ID to vote in person in Northern Ireland.

https://www.gov.uk/voting-in-the-uk/voting-in-person

Somehow the world keeps turning, the sun gets up in the morning, and no-one's unduly worried.

 

[A Challenge]

You already have to show photo ID to vote in person in Northern Ireland.

https://www.gov.uk/voting-in-the-uk/voting-in-person

Somehow the world keeps turning, the sun gets up in the morning, and no-one's unduly worried.

Also in various trial voter ID areas in England.

 

[MotCO]

Personally, I don't think electoral fraud is a problem

I think we need to look at voting in person and postal votes separately.

I don't think we know if there is much voting in person fraud - presumably it will only show up if the genuine person turns up and finds that someone else has already used their name to vote. There could be widespread fraud: a sharper fraudster could identify people who may have moved away, are apathetic, may be ill but not registered for postal votes etc., so the chances of being caught are remote, and we therefore do not know how widespread it is. Thus we do not know how much voting in person fraud there is, and I have always found it strange that some id is not required, even if it is not photo id. For example, rates bills, utility bills, bank statements, etc.

I also have concerns about postal voting fraud, and the Electoral Commission does not seem to be very proactive in identifying this. The EC report that
"Key findings from the analysis of cases of alleged electoral fraud in 2017
The key findings set out in this analysis about cases of alleged electoral fraud in 2017 include:
• At the time of publishing this analysis in March 2018, there had been one conviction and suspects in eight cases had accepted police cautions." source: https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media/789

If I recall, the Met Police failed to identify postal electoral fraud in the 2014 Mayoral election in Tower Hamlets, and a private prosecution was taken out which found evidence of vote-rigging and malpractice which resulted in Mayor Rahman removed from office. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47535867 .

I believe that postal voting should be reserved for exceptional cases - e.g. illness, away on holiday etc, and should be renewed for each election. Relaxing the rules means that it is very difficult to manage and ensure that fraud does not occur.

 

[RuralRambler]

There are only ever a tiny number of fraudulent votes cast at the polling station.

This change would disenfranchise many more genuine voters than the dodgy votes it will prevent.

Those disenfranchised will predominantly be poorer and younger. I'll let others draw their own conclusions...

Many "younger" will already have photo id, such as provisional driving licences, student id cards, etc - they're keen enough to get them when it means they can access pubs and clubs!

In my job, we need to do "proof of id" on all new customers/clients, and these days there really are very few people (of all generations) who can't produce something official with a photo on it - it's become the "norm".

There'll be few people who don't go abroad on holidays, don't drive, aren't in further/higher education, etc.

 

[peters]

When Gordon Brown was trying to push through a national ID card there would have been some benefits to it IF he had made available to those not renewing a passport and not planned to force it on people who were renewing a passport. One of those benefits would be travel around the EEA without needing to carry a passport or using it as an insurance policy so you can get home if your passport is lost or stolen without needing to arrange emergency documents.

There'll be few people who don't go abroad on holidays, don't drive, aren't in further/higher education, etc.

Don't the DVLA force you to surrender them if your health prevents you from driving? Would the same people perhaps be those least likely to hold passports? After all a health condition that prevents you from driving, might also prevent you from enjoying foreign travel.

 

[Domh245]

This sounds like a case of being seen to be doing something.

That and disenfranchising the sort of people who won't vote tory..

 

[Darandio]

In my job, we need to do "proof of id" on all new customers/clients, and these days there really are very few people (of all generations) who can't produce something official with a photo on it - it's become the "norm".

Forgetting novelties such as library cards, the two most common forms of photo ID are either a passport or driving license. When people claim Universal Credit it's favourable for quicker verification that they own at least one of these. The percentage that currently have neither is very high, there are more people that can't produce such an ID than you think.

My assumption is that of those who can't provide it, most don't vote anyway so it's going to make no difference to turnout

 

[jfollows]

I think we need to look at voting in person and postal votes separately.

.....

I believe that postal voting should be reserved for exceptional cases - e.g. illness, away on holiday etc, and should be renewed for each election. Relaxing the rules means that it is very difficult to manage and ensure that fraud does not occur.

You're right to make this distinction, my earlier statement was too sweeping.

However, despite the greater potential problems with postal voting, it'd be something of a reverse to restrict it more. It's been a number of years now that I've been able to vote by post with no reason and the only action is to confirm on my annual electoral registration. So I'd not want it to change.

I think, though, that postal voting has a greater problem than fraud anyway - it's that the vote needs to be cast well before the in-person voting deadline on polling day. For me, it's no problem, but there's a substantial number of people who don't make their minds up until polling day itself, perhaps influenced by last-minute canvassing, which passes me by. Not that anyone ever calls in person any more in Wilmslow, we're generally too much in the Tory camp for anything to make a difference (Neil Hamilton being the unusual but obvious exception).

I think that if postal voting were more restricted as you suggest, yes there would be a reduction in fraud but there would be a bigger change because some people just wouldn't vote and others would change their intended vote on election day itself.

Still, I think that the original voter ID proposal is a solution for a problem which doesn't exist but which gives electoral advantage to the Conservatives, which they might be desperate for at the next election. However the proposed boundaries changes to take effect in 2023 will probably boost the Conservative's seats also (gain of ten seats from Labour? https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/boundaries2023.html).

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The Electoral Commission Study, referred to by a couple of posters above had some analysis:

Great Britain electorate of approximately 46m

• photographic driving licence
• passport
• Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) card,
• military identification card
• police identification card
• firearms licence

We believe that certain photographic public transport passes, including certain concessionary travel passes – could be added this list. Both the Freedom Pass and Oyster Photocard, for example, require verification of the person’s identity before they are issued.

based on the inclusion of the forms of ID listed above, the financial modeller estimated that:

Approximately 3.5m electors (7.5% of the electorate) would have none of the forms of photo ID highlighted, i.e. 92.5% of electors would already have at least one form of acceptable photo ID.
Passports, photographic driving licences and Oyster Photocards only: 6m, or 13% of the electorate [would have none].
Passports and photographic driving licences only would see potentially 11m electors, or 24% of the electorate, without acceptable ID;

Variations:
Wales, where 80% of the population hold a passport, compared with 94% in London.
Among ethnic groups, data from the 2011 Census suggest that the average across all ethnicities of holding an eligible passport is 85%.
People from the following ethnic groups are least likely to hold an eligible passport:

• ‘White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller’ (66% hold an eligible passport)
• ‘White: English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British’ (83% hold an eligible passport)
• ‘Mixed/multiple ethnic groups: White and Black Caribbean’ (just under 85% hold an eligible passport)

Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) data suggests that women in particular and those under 20 and over 65 are less likely to hold a driving licence. People in London also have the lowest rate of holding a driving licence regionally, whereas those in smaller communities or rural areas are more likely.

I have no photo ID, so will be disenfranchised.

 

[DarloRich]

A proposed law change will require voters to show photo ID

 

[Baxenden Bank]

A proposed law change will require voters to show photo ID

Of course it is proposed, you have to start somewhere.

Your emphasis suggests what? That you think it will not happen? A bit like we will never meekly accept having a wide range of our 'freedoms' and 'rights' removed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, with perhaps only a few hours notice (lockdown and Eid, Christmas overnight stays etc.). Like meeting our friends, or going shopping, or having a pint in the pub.

Perhaps we should just leave it all to the adults to decide, to not have a discussion of our own?

 

[pdeaves]

If 'they' want a national ID card, why not just go the whole hog and do it, rather than assume that enough people will have some other ID system? I fall into the 'no photo ID' camp. Well, I have my work ID card, but that isn't considered valid by officialdom. But, as others have suggested, does this proposal really solve the right problem(s)?

 

[jfollows]

If 'they' want a national ID card, why not just go the whole hog and do it, rather than assume that enough people will have some other ID system? I fall into the 'no photo ID' camp. Well, I have my work ID card, but that isn't considered valid by officialdom. But, as others have suggested, does this proposal really solve the right problem(s)?

There's logic to your point, I agree. But the likely opposition to a national ID card would probably come from the Conservative side, wouldn't it? I'm with you, I'm against the mandatory ID, but the Conservatives lost me in 1997 and never got me back since. The proposal of requiring photo ID for voting in person, but not having mandatory photo ID in the first place, is a have-cake-and-eat-it benefit to the Conservatives.

As I said earlier, I expect significant opposition from the House of Lords, who would probably kill the legislation were it not to (as proposed) form part of the government's agenda in the Queen's Speech.

 

[DelW]

If there is concern over possible in-person fraud, I'd have thought an option that avoids the "no photo ID" issue, would be simply to require each voter to show and hand in (or destroy) their poll card when they're given the ballot paper. AFAIK everyone eligible to vote is sent one of these.

Alternatively, local authorities could issue a voter ID photo card to anyone who hasn't any other suitable option. In my home area, libraries can process bus pass applications, with a photo card issued within a few days, so presumably the same procedure could be used.

 

[jfollows]

Alternatively, local authorities could issue a voter ID photo card to anyone who hasn't any other suitable option. In my home area, libraries can process bus pass applications, with a photo card issued within a few days, so presumably the same procedure could be used.

I think that's part of the proposal, to be fair, per the article in The Times I posted earlier.

 

[bangor-toad]

You already have to show photo ID to vote in person in Northern Ireland.

https://www.gov.uk/voting-in-the-uk/voting-in-person

Somehow the world keeps turning, the sun gets up in the morning, and no-one's unduly worried.

This is the case here. The list of acceptable types of ID is fixed in law and it's quite narrow.
It *really* isn't a problem though. Voter turnout %age seems to be pretty much the same as for the rest of the UK.

If you don't have a UK or Irish passport you can get an Electoral Identity card - for no cost.
No one needs to be disenfranchised, everyone can have the opportunity to vote.
If a similar, free, card is offered across the rest of the UK (as seems to be the plan) then who's going to be excluded?

Mr Toad

 

[birchesgreen]

Just tell the Tories it is more likely to be their voters who won't have ID, that'll kill it stone dead

 

[Baxenden Bank]

If 'they' want a national ID card, why not just go the whole hog and do it, rather than assume that enough people will have some other ID system? I fall into the 'no photo ID' camp. Well, I have my work ID card, but that isn't considered valid by officialdom. But, as others have suggested, does this proposal really solve the right problem(s)?

They tried, it was introduced, some people were at the front of the queue to get one, they were withdrawn fairly quickly.

Some people have a bee in their bonnet about everyone proving eligibility for everything, a 'papers please' mentality. They get knocked back but keep coming back. They will not let go of the idea.

I guess your work ID would be accepted. In the same way that a library card is suggested as acceptable. I haven't had one for decades but I guess obtaining a library card does not require high level security checks! Allowance of library cards etc is a means of attempting to be as inclusive as possible without having to go to the effort, as they do in Northern Ireland, (if I recall correctly) of issuing photo ID to people simply so that they can vote.

There is a suggestion that local authorities will be able to issue some form of supplementary ID, so basically a burden placed on already stretched budgets.

Thinking about it, I have an old bus company photo ID for my season ticket. Required absolutely no checks to obtain it. Perhaps I'll have several more made in all my neighbours names. Remember, Vote Early, Vote Often.

 

[jfollows]

If a similar, free, card is offered across the rest of the UK (as seems to be the plan) then who's going to be excluded?

Mr Toad

Because, as a generality, the people least likely to vote Conservative who don't have an ID card they can use will be least likely to make the effort to obtain one in order to vote, especially if that's the only reason for obtaining one, even if it's free.

Similar reasoning behind the attempt in the USA to limit the number of drop-off boxes for early voting ballot papers, most notably in Texas at the 2020 presidential election, justified because it was the same for everyone, but in the knowledge that the significant majority of early votes would be for Democrat candidates and that the people most likely to vote Democrat would find it hardest to find a ballot box, so probably many of them simply wouldn't bother voting.

 

[Randomer]

Personally I would suspect the issue of on the day personation which this seems to want to prevent is a fairly minor problem in the scheme of things.

I do see the issue of people falsely registering, registering twice when entitled but then voting in two national elections (e.g. students able to vote in local elections in two places but only once for national elections although this is a very minor problem) and voters being directed to vote with unlawful influences by community leaders. A required ID law doesn't address any of this unless it also changes how postal votes work.

I personally don't have a problem with having to show ID but would much prefer a system where postal votes required more checks and balances such as having to show ID at a post office or local council office to cast a postal vote. Perhaps combined with early voting at similar locations as is done in a lot of Europe.

If I recall, the Met Police failed to identify postal electoral fraud in the 2014 Mayoral election in Tower Hamlets, and a private prosecution was taken out which found evidence of vote-rigging and malpractice which resulted in Mayor Rahman removed from office. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47535867 .

It wasn't just postal voting there was some pretty obvious allegations of treating to local charities as well which if anything were more blatant.

The dodgiest thing about that case was that the Met Police after having repeatedly failed to find evidence of what was described later as "obvious cases of electoral fraud" in the judgement actually tried to arrest one of the people bringing the case to court on the day the trial was due to start for alleged racially aggravated harassment of the person being prosecuted. It is alleged they only backed down after the judge threatened to find the commissioner in contempt when he was informed about it.

 

[Typhoon]

I have no photo ID, so will be disenfranchised.

Nor have I. (Bearing in mind #15 I would be disenfranchised). However I have had a postal vote for years (since I wasn't able to vote when the polling station didn't open on time, and I worked late that day) and the requirements for getting one are pretty simple; one of the major political parties sometimes stuffs a form through our door with their election junk. I don't remember precisely, but be on the electoral roll and sign a piece of paper twice seem to be about it.

I can at least search out some council facility where I might be able to provide documents that 'prove' that I am me (like my Council Tax bill - fully paid up?) There will be some with limited mobility who cannot do that, they can get to the nearest polling station (10-15 minutes walk for my area, about 5 minutes by mobility scooter) but that's about it; they often don't have the documents that banks insist on to prove identity. You can give them a postal vote but as I've tried to show that is unlikely to limit any fraud.

Alternatively, local authorities could issue a voter ID photo card to anyone who hasn't any other suitable option. In my home area, libraries can process bus pass applications, with a photo card issued within a few days, so presumably the same procedure could be used.

Good idea but with local authority cuts, in some areas libraries are thin on the ground and are (wo)manned by volunteers!

Because, as a generality, the people least likely to vote Conservative who don't have an ID card they can use will be least likely to make the effort to obtain one in order to vote, especially if that's the only reason for obtaining one, even if it's free.

I would suggest also that the Conservatives have the more 'loyal' vote among those who won't have won't have photo-ID so party workers will make sure that these people are able to get an ID card.

Also, as you suggest in #14, London has fewer people with driving licences than other areas - Labour 49 seats, Conservative 21, Lib Dem 3. And I bet that driving licences will be thinner on the ground in Inner London (Labour) areas than the suburbs (where Conservatives and Lib Dems hold sway).

I personally don't have a problem with having to show ID but would much prefer a system where postal votes required more checks and balances such as having to show ID at a post office or local council office to cast a postal vote.

I have twice had my ENCTS bus pass accepted by financial organisations. In one, I was asked whether I had a pass but said that it wasn't proof but it was nevertheless accepted as it is all that I have!

 

[RuralRambler]

Don't the DVLA force you to surrender them if your health prevents you from driving? Would the same people perhaps be those least likely to hold passports? After all a health condition that prevents you from driving, might also prevent you from enjoying foreign travel.

The elderly/disabled may well have "official" photo id in the form of a blue badge for disabled parking or a local authority bus pass. Perhaps an expired passport could be acceptable if the picture was still recognisable (say up to 10 years after expiry?). I'd be pretty certain at least 90% of adults have some kind of "official" photo ID. It doesn't have to be limited to passports and driving licences.

 

[jfollows]

Perhaps an expired passport could be acceptable if the picture was still recognisable (say up to 10 years after expiry?).

I can see too many jobsworths refusing to allow this .... I was once (a long time ago) asked for my ID to prove I was over 21 in Colorado and I showed my "drivers license" which was refused because "it has expired". Of course, my reply was "well, I haven't" but that wasn't good enough. Fortunately I had my passport on me also.

 

[peters]

The elderly/disabled may well have "official" photo id in the form of a blue badge for disabled parking or a local authority bus pass. Perhaps an expired passport could be acceptable if the picture was still recognisable (say up to 10 years after expiry?). I'd be pretty certain at least 90% of adults have some kind of "official" photo ID. It doesn't have to be limited to passports and driving licences.

While a number of elderly and disabled people will have blue badges, the medical conditions I was thinking of probably wouldn't entitle someone to a blue badge or a disabled person's bus pass and a number of people with blue badges can still drive so will have a driving licence as well. There is one slight issue with using the blue badge as voter ID though, if you're parked in a disabled bay or on yellow lines near a polling station and do not have your blue badge on display in the car then you could get a ticket!

An expired passport can be used as ID for only for a few months after its expired. If it expired in Jan 2021 and you're waiting for travel restrictions to be lifted before renewing then it would still be valid ID in May 2021, the likely date for elections.

While many people have photo ID I'm not sure if some of the forms will be accepted for elections, if a NUS card or work security pass can't be used for ID on an internal flight then they probably can't for proving ID at the polling station.

 

[SS4]

You can't require ID to vote and neither have an exhaustive list of what is acceptable nor fail to provide relevant ID to those who want it. With an exhaustive list local officers can refuse ID that others would consider valid. That rejection or acceptance could easily be construed as political in nature regardless of whether or not it actually is. Seems clear as day to me that is a chance by the Tories - recently noted as abusing emergency powers for PPE supplies from their mates - to disenfranchise those who are very unlikely to vote for them. Elections are one of those things where 99% simply isn't good enough to call it a day - even if 99.9% of people had valid ID that's not good enough.

If they want to look at fixing the election process I hear Proportional Representation has been around for the last 100 years but I guess the idea of voters being represented fairly isn't British enough /s