The candidates in the 10th Norfolk District State Representative race agreed to participate in an online debate — responding to questions suggested by Observer readers — in writing, in the Observer. One question and the candidate’s respective responses will be published for a total of seven weeks leading up to the election.

Here is question number 5 and Rep. Roy’s response on the Voter ID question.

5) Voter ID has been a topic of controversy. Some say, IDs are required for almost every kind of activity in our society, so why should a critical civic responsibility be any different, even if only to help assure citizens that the election system is secure? What is your position and what actions have you or would you take in this regard?

Our right to vote is the backbone of American democracy. That’s why so many citizens have risked or lost their lives to protect and realize that right as intended. It’s important to protect the integrity of our elections, but we must be careful not to undermine free and fair access to the ballot.

And it is important to ALL OF US that our elections be fair, clean, and well run. I have all the confidence in the world that our Town Clerks in Franklin and Medway are doing an incredible job ensuring that the people who vote are the people who are eligible to vote. To my knowledge, there has never been voter fraud in our district. And a 2019 study of national behavior found voter ID laws have a negligible impact on voter fraud, which is already extremely rare.

Eligibility to vote in the United States is governed by the United States Constitution and by federal and state laws. Several constitutional amendments (the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth specifically) require that voting rights of U.S. citizens cannot be abridged on account of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age (18 and older).

Though state laws requiring some sort of identification at voting polls go back to 1950, no state required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition for voting before the 2006 elections. Indiana became the first state to enact a strict photo ID law, which was struck down by two lower courts before being upheld in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2005, a national commission, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, studied the issue and recommended that States should require voter photo IDs. See Report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, Building Confidence in U. S. Elections, App. 136-144. This ID requirement is purportedly intended to prevent “voter fraud,” and yet the Report itself concedes that “[t]here is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting” before asserting, without any meaningful support, that “both occur.”

The Carter-Baker Commission conditioned its recommendation upon the States’ willingness to ensure that the requisite photo IDs “be easily available and issued free of charge” and that the requirement be “phased in” over two federal election cycles, to ease the transition. Carter-Baker Report, App. 139, 140. It also conditioned its recommendation upon the States’ willingness to ensure that the requisite photo IDs “be easily available and issued free of charge” and that the requirement be “phased in” over two federal election cycles, to ease the transition. Carter-Baker Report, App. 139, 140.

Pennsylvania’s voter ID law adopted in 2012 allowed various forms of photo identification cards, including those held by drivers, government employees, in-state college students, and residents of elder-care facilities. Voters who do not possess these forms of identification can obtain voting-only photo IDs issued by the Pennsylvania Department of State through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The law was challenged and following a trial in the summer of 2013, it was struck down on January 17, 2014 as violative of the constitutional rights of state voters. The ruling noted that required alternative voter IDs were available only through 71 PennDOT Drivers Licensing Centers across the state. Five of the 71 DLCs are located in Philadelphia, nine counties have no DLCs at all, and DLCs have limited hours: in nine counties they are open only one day per week, and in 13 counties they are open only two days per week. The court ruled that the state provided too little access, no financial support to provide IDs to those without access, and no alternatives to obtaining the required IDs. Thus, photo IDs are not required to vote in PA.

Voter identification laws have become the subject of intense partisan conflict and numerous legal challenges in recent years. Proponents say the laws are necessary to prevent voter fraud. Opponents say there is little fraud of this kind, that the burden on voters unduly restricts the right to vote, and that the laws impose unnecessary costs and administrative burdens on elections officials. All voters, regardless of the type of verification required by the states, are subject to perjury charges if they vote under false pretenses.

Against this backdrop, I would support voter ID laws that are not designed to suppress the right to vote and if the IDs are easily available and issued free of charge. It is important to note that as many as 11 percent of eligible voters do not have the kind of ID that is required by states with strict ID requirements, and that percentage is even higher among seniors, minorities, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students.

In Massachusetts it is already the law that you may need to show identification when you check-in at your polling place if:

• You are voting for the first time in Massachusetts
• You’re on the inactive voter list
• You’re casting a provisional or challenged ballot
• The poll worker has a practical and legal reason to ask for identification

Identification needs to show your name and the address where you are registered to vote. Examples of acceptable identification are:

• A driver’s license
• A state ID card
• A recent utility bill
• A rent receipt or lease.
• A copy of a voter registration affidavit
• A letter from a school dormitory or housing office
• Any other printed identification which contains your name and address

I believe that the current Massachusetts law is adequate and see no basis for making further changes. If presented with evidence of voter fraud, however, I would push for changes.