I do not favor voter ID requirements, because evidence of fraud is extremely scarce; some people don’t have government-issued ID’s; and in general, our voting process is too cumbersome, not too easy. But I would hesitate before putting major effort into fighting the ID requirements. In a carefully conducted survey,* Harvard political scientist Stephen Ansolabehere and colleagues asked 22,211 voters if they were (a) asked for ID at the polling place and (b) blocked from voting. Twenty-five respondents out of those 22,211 said that this had happened to them. That is slightly more than one tenth of one percent–and some of those may have been truly ineligible. In 2008, Ansolabehere and colleagues asked non-voters why they hadn’t voted, and four people out of 1,113 non-voters cited ID requirements as one reason. (Those four people also cited other reasons, so it’s not clear that abolishing the requirements would have caused them to participate.)

I can well imagine that the intent of ID requirements is to suppress voting. The requirements are being applied inequitably: according to the Ansolabehere study, African Americans are much more likely than whites to report that they were asked for ID. The intent is indefensible. On the other hand, if the actual reduction in turnout is much less than one percent, maybe we should put our attention elsewhere, whether that means effective civic education, adequate numbers of polling stations, same-day voter registration, or campaign finance reform.

*Stephen Ansolabehere, “Effects of Identification Requirements on Voting: Evidence from the Experiences of Voters on Election Day,” PS, January 2009 pp. 127-30. The survey used an Internet sample, not a random-digit-dial sample, but the authors employed impressive techniques to test for representativeness.

Las Vegas–I am with more than 100 alumni of YouthBuild who have turned into effective leaders. Most are now professional youth workers, and many run organizations. When they entered YouthBuild, they were high-school dropouts. (That is a criterion for admission.) Most YouthBuild students also have many other challenges, from criminal records to drug abuse. On entering the program, participants estimate their own life expectancies at 40 (on average), whereas upon completing the program, they have raised the estimate to 72–evidence that they have gained a sense of opportunity, optimism, and purpose.* They join in order to earn some money and gain a GED, but they are treated from the beginning with genuine respect and are empowered to make important collective decisions. We believe their civic empowerment is an important reason for their success in the program.

This video below emphasizes the severe problems participants face before YouthBuild and the personal progress they make. It does not do full justice to their political empowerment–the degree to which they become effective public speakers, deliberators, and leaders.

There are 100,000 YouthBuild alumni–not all successful, but still the nucleus of a mass movement. Attending a conference of YouthBuild alumni makes you feel that the Civil Rights Movement is still alive.

*Andrew Hahn, Thomas D. Leavitt, Erin McNamara Horvat, and James Earl Davis, “Life after YouthBuild” (Somerville, MA: YouthBuild USA, 2004) via www.youthbuild.org.

At the University of Florida late last week, I heard a presentation by the staff of Local Projects, a design firm that creates interactive public installations that provoke constructive discussions. For instance, in StoryCorps, people enter a kiosk in pairs, interview each other, and their taped interview becomes part of a digital archive. When Local History created the installation for the National September 11 Memorial Museum, they asked people to contribute their own photos and text from 9/11 and produced a repository that is also accessible via one of the top iPhone apps. At the Contemporary Issues Forum of the National Museum of American Jewish History (shown below), visitors tape their answers to controversial questions. (The fact that participants’ arguments are recorded along with their real names and faces inhibits incivility.)

Advanced technology helps but isn’t essential. An early project involved a memorial in Washington for the New York City victims of 9/11. It was a large paper map of New York, onto which visitors could post their own hand-written notes on semi-transparent paper. Not only did the map become a repository of memories, but strangers had moving conversations.

There are precedents. In 1773, Philippe d’Orleans rebuilt the Palais-Royale in Paris with open arcades for cafes and entertainments. Throughout the Revolution, those spaces were bedecked with posters, pamphlets, and broadsides that prompted all kinds of conversations, including the famous speech of Camille Desmoulins that helped cause the Storming of the Bastille. Or consider the Egyptian Army tanks that are currently covered with democratic slogans. But despite these precedents, museum installations that create archives of visitors’ contributions seem to me basically a new genre–and full of democratic possibilities.

(In Gainesville, FL, en route to Orlando)–Yesterday, as I guest-taught a University of Florida class on “redefining citizenship,” several questions arose that I found interesting. Here are the questions, with answers that the students suggested (or that I have added myself):

1. A life of very active civic engagement and commitment is …

a. No better than any other life, as long as each life meets some basic ethical standards such as not violating just laws.

b. A good life, but no better than several other good lives, such as a life devoted to caring for family or creating art.

c. Equivalent to a good life. If you devote yourself to art or to God (for example), you are doing it for the good of the world, so you are civically engaged.

2. If you are a resident of the People’s Republic of China today …

a. You can be a good person and lead a good life, but you cannot be a good citizen, because that means exercising democratic rights and powers, which do not exist. You are not a citizen; you are a subject.

b. You can and should be a citizen of China as a democracy. Since China is not a democracy, you are a good citizen to the extent that you fight the current regime in favor of democracy.

c. Many people in China are good citizens. That means that they promote the common good by serving others, joining groups, fighting corruption, and supporting the Rule of Law.

Gainesville, FL–I am visiting the Bob Graham Center for Public Service at the University of Florida today. Senator Graham himself is a strong proponent of youth civic engagement and the author of a wonderfully practical book about how to organize a movement and influence the government: America, the Owner’s Manual: Making Government Work for You. I will have a chance to meet him today, before he and William Reilly, who co-chaired the Oil Spill Commission, conduct a public event on the causes and consequences of the Gulf oil disaster. The Graham Center is an important institution in the field of civic education and engagement, and I am looking forward to learning more about their work.