Most countries face challenges in identifying eligible voters when they appear at the voting station. The election process must be structured to ensure that only legitimately registered individuals vote and that persons who turn out at the voting stations to vote are in fact who they claim to be.
When potential voters come to the voting station on election day, they must usually identify themselves to election officers before they receive a ballot. This allows election officers to check the names of voters against the voters’ list and ensure that they are included. Each name is then checked off or crossed out, or the voter is asked to sign the register. In some cases, when there are concerns about the possibility of multiple voting, voters may be required to dip a finger in indelible ink to indicate that they have voted.
When the Norm Is to Carry Identification
There are various ways that voters may prove their identity. In countries where it is the norm for citizens to carry identification (e.g. national identity card, driver’s license, employment ID card, health care ID card), the election administration may not need to issue its own identifying documents. In a country where voter fraud is unlikely to occur, registration offices may not ask for any identification; voters simply sign the voters’ list or register. And with the switch to computerized files, often there is no original signature for comparison.
Mailed voter identification cards give voters the information that appears about them on the voters’ list and also present voter education material. Sent to all citizens on the voters’ list, this simple card contains their personal information as it appears on the list, together with the date of the election and location of the voting station at which they are registered. At the voting station, voters identify themselves by presenting the card and simply stating their name and address, or showing a piece of photo ID, such as a driver’s licence.
When the Norm Is Not to Carry Identification
In other countries, proving identity for elections can be far more complex and even cumbersome for election officials. This is particularly true in a country with no civil registry, where it is not the norm for citizens to carry personal identification. This situation places a considerable financial and administrative burden on the electoral administration, which must provide proof of identity to all potential voters. In some cases, voters themselves must bear some of the costs of producing Voter Identification Cards or other identification.
Security Considerations
With the use of voter identification cards, a major concern for effective election administration is security, and foremost among security concerns is the threat of forgery. Mindful of this threat, in August 1990 Mexico adopted security-enhanced voter identification cards. To prevent forgery, nine security features were incorporated into the card’s design, making it almost impossible to duplicate or alter. The security features include a bar code, hologram, photograph and molecular fusion.
Another concern is security of storage and distribution. This was an issue in the June 1995 elections in Haiti. Of the 4.2 million voter identification cards produced, the electoral commission announced that 1 million were missing. But although this number was widely reported, it was never confirmed. [1]
Still another issue with voter identification cards is the question of having the capacity to issue cards to the entire population of eligible voters. This was a challenge in the El Salvador elections of 1994, as well as in Nicaragua throughout the 1990s. The tasks of registering voters and issuing voter identification cards are greatly complicated if the election is being held in a country experiencing an armed conflict; this happened in Nicaragua, Angola, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Last, if the costs of producing identification cards are passed on to voters, the impact will be substantial, as Senegal found in its 1993 elections. The relatively minor costs were prohibitive for many potential voters, barring their participation in the electoral process.
Features Available for Voter Identification Cards
Voter identification cards may have a wide variety of features, both simple and complex. Security features generally increase the cost, sometimes sharply, but they are not always necessary. In one case, forgery was prevented by producing the card as a tear-off portion at the bottom of the registration form itself, bearing the same pre-printed voter registration number as the form. This virtually ruled out producing forged cards or stealing blank cards since the same name and identification number had to appear on both the card and the voters’ list. It was also decided that simply presenting the card at the polls was not enough. For the most part cards issued at the time of registration were sealed using a cold lamination process, so that any attempt to remove the laminate would damage the card. Accurate records identified which forms were issued to which voting stations. Still another security measure used in this case was fingerprinting on the registration card as well as the detachable registration form.
Concerns About Administrative disenfranchisement
Although voter identification cards have been adopted around the world, it is especially important to ensure that they do not lead to the administrative disenfranchisement by some voters who find the associated costs prohibitive. Administrative disenfranchisement occurs if a citizen formally and legally has the right to register to vote and to vote, but is prevented from exercising that right because the costs of doing so are too high. In some cases, the costs of obtaining a voter identification card have been perceived as causing administrative disenfranchisement. For example, in one country the government did not charge any fee for issuing a national identity card, but voters still had to pay for photographs and official stamps, and they faced loss of wages for the time spent acquiring the card. In the end, the real cost was prohibitively high for many. The predictable result was the administrative disenfranchisement of otherwise eligible voters.
NOTES
[1] International Republican Institute (IRI), Haiti: Pre-Electoral Assessment of the June 25, 1995, Legislative and Municipal Elections, Washington: IRI, 1995, Appendix VI.
