A little over a year ago, on a cloudy Tuesday morning in November, I walked a few blocks down the street from my apartment to my local polling place in West Philadelphia to vote in the 2010 elections.  I walked up to the election judges’ table and provided my name.  Anxious to get into the booth and get on my way to work, I awaited as they thumbed through their book of names and signatures to my name.  I saw them arrive at my page and prepared to affix my signature.  Then, to my surprise, one of the judges asked a question that I had not anticipated:

“Do you have a photo ID?”

I did; in fact, I had my Pennsylvania driver’s license, my voter registration card, my student ID, and my employee ID, all of which I knew from the Committee of Seventy’s voter rights guide were among the legal forms of identification for the purpose of voting in Pennsylvania.  Still, I had no intention of presenting any of them.  This was my second time voting at this polling place, and I knew that voters in the state are only required to furnish identification upon voting for the first time at a polling place.  I calmly reminded the election judge of the law, stood my ground, and was permitted to vote without incident.  While I was glad to be able to cast my ballot, I worried that the next voter to arrive without ID might not have been as well-versed in the law as I had been and would be at risk to be improperly turned away.

The experience described above, is a troubling sign of what might happen if the proponents of PA HB 934 get their way.  The bill has passed the House and presently awaits a vote in the Senate.  The law, as presently written, would require all voters to produce a photo identification issued by the U.S. government, by the commonwealth, by an accredited Pennsylvania institution of higher learning, or by a Pennsylvania long-term care facility each and every time they vote.  In an article (free, registration required) recently published in the Legal Intelligencer, Karen Buck of the SeniorLAW Center highlights a number of reasons why this policy is costly, misguided, and likely to disproportionately hinder the rights of our state’s most vulnerable citizens.  As she notes, not only does obtaining a state ID cost money that low-income voters might not have, but it requires two proofs of residency, a Social Security card, and a current passport or birth certificate with a raised seal, to say nothing of the additional hurdles for those whose names have changed.

For some of the older adults that CARIE and our partners in the aging community work with, the onerous requirements of obtaining a photo ID could effectively disenfranchise them.  Obtaining a birth certificate may prove next to impossible for older adults from marginalized populations who never received a birth certificate or may need to obtain one from another state.  Beyond that, long-term care facilities typically do not issue photo IDs to their residents, voters without IDs and limited mobility may not be able to access transportation to a local DMV.  As Buck notes, tying the right to vote to the purchase of a photo ID reduces the franchise to a commodity only accessible to those of certain means, analogous to a “poll tax” and other thinly veiled attempts to limit the voting rights of low-income and minority voters.  With multiple studies showing little-to-no voter fraud at polling places nationwide and opposition to the bill from a bipartisan committee of Pennsylvania county commissioners who oversee elections, the effort behind HB 934 is perplexing to say the least.

In Pennsylvania and throughout the country, participation rates of eligible voters are pitiable compared to other countries with democratically elected governments.  Creating additional hindrances to exercising one’s right to vote in order to address a problem that is essentially nonexistent will certainly not change that.  The requirements of this bill will disproportionately harm voters whose voices need to be heard in our political process.

Written by Paul Vande Stouwe, CARIE MSW Intern

Unfortunately, SNAP benefits have traditionally been underutilized; while approximately 460,000 of Philadelphia residents (about ¼ of the city’s population) receive SNAP benefits, estimates suggest that about 180,000 additional residents are eligible but not receiving benefits.  This shortfall can be attributed to a number of reasons, including individuals’ fear of stigmatization from participation in a social welfare program; difficulty jumping through the bureaucratic hoops of completing an application; and a reluctance to share a large amount of private information with strangers.  In previous work experiences and on our CARIE LINE, I have seen seemingly SNAP-eligible individuals decline to apply based on these and other reasons.

In 2008, Pennsylvania removed asset limits from SNAP eligibility determinations, a decision that grew the pool of eligible households and eliminated a significant piece of red tape from the application process.  At the time, the move was seen as prudent action in light of the growing economic downturn as economic insecurity become a reality for households who would have previously thought it unfathomable.  This made it all the more troubling when I learned last week in the Philadelphia Inquirer that the state would be reinstituting the asset test, with limits of $2,000 and $3,250 for non-seniors and seniors, respectively.  For seniors with low enough incomes to qualify for SNAP, $3,250 hardly provides the safety net that it might seem to at first glance, especially when one considers that those asset limits remain unchanged since 1980.  Compared to their higher-income contemporaries, Seniors who qualify for SNAP are more likely to be vulnerable to growing medical costs, lacking the income to purchase supplemental medical coverage and unlikely to have employer-provided health coverage as part of a retirement benefits package.

With Pennsylvanians still hurting in the economic downturn, adding additional hurdles to the SNAP application process seems misguided with the already significant level of underuse of the program in Philadelphia and statewide.  SNAP benefits are entirely funded by federal dollars (with the state providing small portion of the administrative expenses, which will likely be increased by the requirement of additional documentation for review), making Pennsylvania’s decision to become one of only 15 states with a SNAP asset test that much more of a head scratcher.  The only likely financial impact for the state from the 2% of Pennsylvania SNAP recipients declined benefits as a result of the change would seem to be a ripple effect of subsequent losses in revenues for businesses that accept SNAP benefits, as well as the utility companies, lenders, landlords, and other businesses whom former recipients may need to delay payments to or fail to make payments to entirely.  With no clamor for such a policy change beyond those believing the old racially coded canard of “welfare queens driving Cadillacs” and no apparent beneficiaries (other than, perhaps, predatory payday lenders eager to take advantage of a new pool of financially squeezed potential customers), the Corbett Administrations seems to have accomplished the rare “lose-lose” policymaking.

With the policy not currently scheduled to go into effect until May, there is still time to speak out against it.  CARIE will be posting more information soon on its website and the Coalition Against Hunger has posted additional information about advocating against this change.

CARIE understands that applying for SNAP may feel like a daunting process for you or your loved ones, and we are proud to be able to assist you with the process.  We can help callers on our CARIE LINE with completing the application over the phone, help individuals complete an application in our center city office, or we can help you locate organizations in your area that can give you an in-person appointment to go through the application.  Call us at (215) 545-5728 or 1-800-356-3606 for more information and help.

Written by Paul Vande Stouwe, CARIE MSW Intern

Ice, snow, freezing rain and subzero temperatures can leave you trapped in your home and temporarily halt important services like mail delivery. When this happens, you can be stuck without access to your money at a time when you need it most.

Switching to electronic payments is a simple step you can take to ensure your money is on time, every time, no matter what winter brings. The Treasury Department recommends two electronic payment options: direct deposit to a bank or credit union account or the Direct Express^® Debit MasterCard^® card account. Switch now. It’s easy:

• Go to www.GoDirect.org
• Call (800) 333-1795
• Visit your federal benefit agency office
• Sign up at your local bank or credit union (direct deposit only)

More details, including an instructional video on how to sign up for electronic payments, can be found at www.GoDirect.org.

Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service