Thread by @levinecarrie

Since Sen. Manchin made voter ID part of his proposal for a compromise voting bill, there's been a lot of talk about Democrats changing their position on it.

It's made me think about the different times I've come across voter ID as an issue when reporting stories. So: thread!

In North Dakota in 2018, a new law required voter IDs to have street addresses. That requirement was difficult for Native Americans because most reservation addresses were PO boxes only. They didn't have no street addresses.

apps.publicintegrity.org/abandoned-in-a…

Even if the state assigned one, voters had to obtain a new ID that had the address. The mean travel distance for voters on Standing Rock to a site where they could obtain a North Dakota driver’s license or non-driver state identification was 61 miles. apps.publicintegrity.org/abandoned-in-a…

Poverty-stricken tribes in North Dakota shouldered the cost of issuing free new tribal IDs that met the requirements, and ran a massive turnout effort. publicintegrity.org/politics/backl…

North Dakota settled years of litigation over this by providing alternatives, and committing to work with the tribes to distribute free state IDs that met the requirement. But that wasn't an easily won settlement. publicintegrity.org/politics/votin…

Meanwhile, Kentucky passed a voter ID law in early 2020. @JoshuaADouglas described it as still unnecessary, but likely one of the mildest in the country. That compromise laid the groundwork for a bipartisan election bill passed there earlier this year. publicintegrity.org/politics/elect…

All that is to say, when talking about voter ID laws, there can be a lot of factors, including what the law actually requires voters to produce, whether there are alternatives, and whether there are voters who (for good reason) may have a harder time meeting the requirements.

Ugh, also, "they didn't have no street addresses" is a typo, for everyone who just thinks it's my accent/speech pattern coming out on Twitter.