administrators in the nhs. those are the figures. you may shake his head. in terms of his local clinical commissioning group it is getting an 18 million-pound cash increase in the next year and it will also get an additional 19 million pounds through the better care fund. so locally there should be improvements in services rather than the picture he paints. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm concerned the criteria for exams of religious studies have yet to be published by the department of education to the whole book is in number 10. can be prime minister confirm this is not the case and that they will be public very soon? >> i will look carefully at the issue that he raises. it is important to get this issue of how religious education is carried out right. if there is a blockage in my office i will make sure that i -- i may, i will make sure i go into -- and get rid of it.

>> at his party conference, the prime minister promised that if reelected he would cut income tax by seven-point bounce. that money has got to come from somewhere. so just how big an increase in vat has he got in mind that this can't? >> what i was a to the right a bullet is where demonstrated in this apartment that if you manage the economy probably it is possible to reduce spending to reduce the deficit and reduce taxes at the same time but that's exactly what we have done during this parliament we've taken the personal allowance, the amount you can earn before paying income tax to 10,500 pounds. i know the later par be -- labour party don't want to hear good news but people are paying less income tax under this government and we've taken 3 million people out of income tax altogether. and if reelected we want to raise to 12,500 pounds the nutty

buddy that people can earn before they start paying income tax. wide we want to do this? because i decided as we think people should have more of their own money to spend as they choose. >> thank you, mr. speaker yesterday's announcement by royals -- rolls-royce will devastate people and to damage a national engine skills base. will my right honorable friend meet me an employer were of rolls-royce to see if we can minimize the effect of this by finding alternative engineering jobs and to preserve our vital in getting expertise? can he reassure my constituents that he will continue to champion our defense export manufacturing? >> i can service your my audible but i'll do everything again to champion companies like rolls-royce whether civil aerospace or in defense aerospace, i try to take what is meant a bike trade missions as possible because they are

world-class were leaving company. it's disappointing they plan to reduce the number of people they employ but it's not yet clear how many of those job reductions will be here in the uk. of course, rolls-royce employs over 25,000 people here in uk. if we look at what's happened to the aerospace industry, over the last four years employment is up by 10%, exports are up by 48%, turnover is up by one-fifth. this is a successful industry that is being backed by our modern international strategy but when he did after the weekend to make sure his company and others like it continued to succeed in the years ahead. >> in 2010, there were 127 full-time equivalent gps. at the last count it had 97 come and so my constituents were waiting up to two weeks for an appointment. [inaudible] a result of deliberate policy of is it just carelessness a? >> what i would say first of all

there are thousands more gps across the country today than they were in 2010. if she wants to know what has happened in war intent under this government, when i became prime minister there were 130 people who were waiting a year for operation. today that number is zero. that is what's happened under this government. now, because we're making the money available, it is possible to have more gps coming into your area alongside the thousand we've already introduced. [shouting] >> at a time of economic crisis it was the stability of the coalition that has helped us build a stronger economy. does the prime minister agreed that in creating a more fair society can any further rise in attacks of violence should not be done on the backs of the poor? >> what i say to the honorable, honorable friend is it has been possible in this parliament to raise the personal allowance to

take some of the poorest people out of tax, 3 million people out of tax, and tax cuts for 26 million people at the same time as making decisions that are fair for all, like for instance, making sure the nhs gets an extra 1,227,000,000,000 pounds. of course, you do have to make difficult decisions and some of the difficult decisions we have made have been looking at things like a home office budget with the police are being far more efficient than they were and making changes to welfare each and everyone which has been opposed by the party opposite. the fact is the few manage the national finances carefully, get our economy to grow properly and ignore the shadow chancellor who nearly bankrupted the country, you can do these things togeth together. >> mr. speaker, after reading yesterday's front page of the times can do welcome the prime minister's late conversion to id cards and even if they are for now virtual and without labour's biometric functionality? if the prime minister intends to

keep his promise to keep our borders safe and secure, can he tell the house when the system will be in place and why it has taken him so long? >> a very interesting government that labour are now back in favor of id cards. i thought they'd even seen the folly of their ways. what we're introducing is proper border checks so we can count people in and count people out, something that was never available under labour. sadly they -- something help to get rid of and making sure we know more about those who are coming and when they left. spin my friend will recall our support for the cutting of libyan troops in my constituency. does he share my concern that the program failed to maintain discipline and the consequences of that were very serious in my local community? will he undertake the ministry of defence will get my constituents a full accounting for the failures in the delivery of this program? we also agreed the libyan

soldiers should not be repatriated to libya? and there's no basis for any of them to seek or receive asylum in this country? >> i agree with my right honorable friend on every front. what has happened in cambridgeshire is completely unacceptable. these are criminal actions of asked the chief of the defense staff to report into this but a decision was taken which ushered on the 20th of october to end this training altogether. the trainees will be returning to live in the coming days and in the meantime all unescorted visits from the camp have been stopped altogether. >> thank you, mr. speaker. which does the prime minister belief is more immoral? raising vat to 20%, or concealing the intention to do so? >> i will tell you what is immoral and that his writing of debt for our children that you're not prepared to pay for yourself. that is what we inherited. we inherited the biggest budget deficit of any country anywhere in the world.

that is the immoral inheritance we received in the labour party. to is the prime minister aware that the region with the most text started outside of london and the fastest growth in private sector business over the last quarter and highs rising value of exports is northeast of england? and see if we with me we should stick to the long-term economic plan so we all have the benefit of? >> honorable friend makes an important point, and it is notable that when we look at things like small business creation, exports investment, the growth is coming from around the country including the northeast and that is a huge contrast under 13 years of labour. our economy for every 10 jobs created in the south, they only created one in the north. that is the record. that is the record of the last labour government. what we need to do is increase

entrepreneurialism and startups in every part of our country. that's what startup loans are doing what the enterprise allowance is doing. there's a new spirit of enterprise in britain and this government is backing it. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in 2012 my constituents died whilst on the world challenge trip to morocco. he was 17. the corner was so concerned of the multiple failings -- to prevent future deaths. to our british safety standards but these are entirely voluntary. why is this not compulsory some the other parent have to suffer a? >> what i would like to do is look very carefully at the case the honorable lady mentioned and write to her about it. this is important. making sure safety standards are upheld and trying to prevent tragedies like the one she refers to. >> it's been right to push 490% available in of broadband by

next year and universal basic broadband service. but is the prime minister aware that these targets to be missed even in urban areas? will be asked ministers to make sure local delivery matches the governments ambition? >> i will survey do that. we review very regularly their performance of the broadband market because it is essential, particularly for rural areas if you left off superfast broadband it's much were difficult to take part in the market economy. i think the progress has been very, very good pickup is made a difference now the british telecom are prepared to publish all the areas that are not yet covers or other companies can come in and see what they are able to provide. we are making available broadband vouchers for small businesses which are very successful and we can look to see whether we can expand that. i'm convinced spreading broadband right around the country is one of the most important priorities for this government. >> since the prime minister likes to bang on about labour spin the, is he aware --

[shouting] >> is he aware that in labour's 11 years before they crashed into thousand eight, the biggest deficit was 3.3% of gdp, what as the labour government racked up the deficit better than that? so who is the over spender if it's a no-brainer? >> there's only one problem with what they write audible state which is the deficit they left and we inherited was 11.5% of gdp. it was bigger than almost any other countries anywhere in the world. if you don't believe me you can listen to your island shadow chancellor. he said this, i think the fact of the massive global financial crisis which happened on our watch been that people -- i

don't think we have industry with people if we only said it was a financial crisis. it was also after 13 is in government we made some mistakes. there we have it. some mistakes but you but there were mistakes to overspend taken over barwick of overtaxing, wasteful welfare, bloated expenditure, a complete and utter failure and its extraordinary they are still sitting there on the front bench. >> the prime minister will be aware that millions of people -- design and commissioned by paul cummings. we congratulate those who make it and hundreds and hundreds of volunteers who have helped to plant them in derby to commemorate this very important -- >> i certainly join my honorable friend in praising all those involved in this extraordinary project which has i think brought all from the bridge

public a huge amount of reverence for those of given their lives and served our country. the numbers going to see this display have been truly extraordinary and it is worth remembering that as of this but a lot of good will, because us understand the poppies are being auctioned to charities and all the money for military and veterans charities will actually be there to do good in many years to come. it's an extraordinary play, one that country can be very proud of. >> in the last 12 months it is estimated that 24,000 people have died from diabetes related complications. next friday is world diabetes day. as one of the 3.2 million diabetics, cannot urge the prime minister to do all he can to raise awareness on this issue? in particular to introduce measures that will reduce the amount of sugar in our food and drink? we can prevent the onset of type two diabetes and we can save

lives. >> i think the right honorable gentleman is right to resume fourth of this issue. the consequences of diabetes in terms of leg amputation's cost the nhs livery billion billionsf pounds a year and that we can get better at preventing diabetes, and in testing and helping diabetics themselves better, we can make huge savings while improving people's quality of life. i doubt he also wants me to try and ban sugar and fizzy drinks in downtown for 24 hours but i will try to negotiate that with much of the he also wants a two light my home blue which is something i am in favor of in keeping in that for some time to come. >> hs three under improvements to rail connectivity in the northwest are important that the recent parliamentary approval given to the development and northern lincolnshire and besides imports of connections on the south train.

can my right honorable friend assure me that my constituency will figure it in future proposals to improve connectivity so the very can benefit from the benefits of the government's long-term economic plan? >> i concern assure my honorable friend that we're looking at all the elements of east-west conductivity and trying to make sure that we bring the benefits of faster journey times and greater capacity and electrification to all parts of the country, and under the chancellor was listening very carefully to the statement that he made. >> border. -- order. >> you on c-span2 we will now leave the british house of commons as members mov move on o other business. you have been watching prime minister's question time and life wednesdays when producing such but you can see this again sunday nights at nine eastern and pacific on c-span. and for more information go to

c-span.org, click on series to get every program with and from the british house of commons since october 1989. we invite your comments about prime ministers questions via twitter using the hashtag pmq pmqs. >> coming up, "national journal" hosts a discussion on the outcome of the midterm elections that were there from charlie cook of the cook political report as well as democratic and republican strategists. that gets underway at 8:30 a.m. eastern live here on c-span2. >> the 2015 c-span studentcam video competition is underway. open to all middle and high school students to create a 5-7 minute document on the theme the three branches and you. showing how policies, or action by the executor website or judicial branch of the federal government has affected you or your community. there are 200 cash prizes

totaling $100,000. for the list of rules and how to get started good studentcam.org. >> now a discussion on requiring a photo id to vote. will hear from supporters and opponents of voter id laws from the international foundation for electoral systems, this is an hour. >> well, good morning. good morning, everyone, and welcome to the voter id panel. it's nice to see so many family faces in the audience from across the world and in the number of places that we work. and as i was preparing for this panel i was going back and

thinking about the countries were i worked previously, and i think in most everything that country there's been some sort of an id requirement in order for people to vote. in some cases we've seen countries where there might not just be voter id required. in some places we have seen maybe there are three or four states issued ids that are applicable him and to some states like windows in kosovo that 64 different combinations of id cards in order to be qualified to cast a ballot on election day. so this is a broad range of solutions when it comes to the voter id challenge. and i think the debate currently ongoing here in the u.s. is a very relevant. we have basically some argument

a new tighter voter id law have led to voter suppression, and on the other hand, with others arguing that voter fraud is reality in the u.s. system and, therefore, were having more stretch and id -- stringent id requirements. in order to answer some this question with two eminent scholars with those. to my far right we have professor justin levitt. is an expert in election law with scholarship synovitis supreme court. have testified before committees of the u.s. senate, the u.s. civil rights commission, state legislative bodies and federal and state courts but he also presented before the mexican electoral tribunal. and he has served on several presidential campaigns, including after the 2008 national voter protection council. and to my immediate right we have mr. hans von spakovsky. is the marriage of election law reform initiative at the

heritage foundation. he's an authority on a wide range of issues, including civic rights, civil justice, the first amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform. and ask the manager of the think tanks election law reform initiative, he has studied and written on campaign finance restrictions, administration of elections, voter fraud and, of course, voter id. and he's very well represented on a number of the tv and radio outlets, including a prolific author of a number of commentaries in the nationwide media. so thank you very much for accepting to be part of this panel. the setup we're having here today in order to maximize the amount of exchange between the audience and panelists, i've asked them how to respect themselves to 10, maximum 15 minutes of introductory remarks stating the case and what they

think the issues are when it comes to voter id in the u.s. and then we will open up for questions and answers. so with these the words i'm handing over to mr. von spakovsky as a great between the panelists, he would start first. so the floor is yours. >> staffan, thank yo thank you , and welcome to the tiny. we are glad to have you here. staffan gave an introduction of me as a lawyer and to write about these topics by want you to understand also that i come at this from a practical standpoint because i actually have been an election administrator down at the local apple. i was on a county registration and election board in the state of georgia where we were responsible for voting registration and running the polls on election day and the largest county in the state.

i recently left another county electoral board in the state of virginia, in fairfax county cop were i think many of you may be going to observe tomorrow. and fairfax can also is the largest county in the state of virginia. so i have a lot of practical experience in what it's like to register individuals to vote and winning a polling place on election day, and most importantly counting the votes at the end of the day once all the ballots have been cast. now, you may be a little confused by this whole debate about voter id. because as a staffan said come we are one of the only western democracies that does not uniformly require a photo id when you go vote. part of that is because of the fact we have, as i'm sure you've been briefed, a very

decentralized election system. there is no federal agency at the national level that runs elections in this country, including federal elections which we are bound to have tomorrow. those were all run down at the local level, usually by county government come in some states even by county, township, county governments. currently, we have about 31 states, out of 50, that requires some form of id when you vote. about half of those states require a photo id. now, in every state that requires a photo id, the law has also been passed that will provide a free photo id to anyone that doesn't already have one. opponents of this will say, well, there is no voter fraud in the united states and, therefore, we really don't need

this kind of an honor system. well, two years ago i published a book with my co-author in which we go to case after case after case of voter fraud. in the last month we've had individuals indicted for voter fraud in this country in mississippi, where the fraud actually changed the results of a mayor's race. in connecticut were a state legislator was indicted on 19 counts of voter fraud. we had a case just recently in tennessee there were a woman was indicted for buying votes which, of course, is illegal in this country. and just yesterday the ap reported on a man in the state of new mexico who showed up to vote and was told that it already voted. someone had shown up three days prior and had cast a ballot in

his name. now, when they went back and checked, according to the story, the signature of the prior voter did not match the signature on file with the government. new mexico is one of the states that does not have an id requirement. the u.s. supreme court which agenda is the highest court in the united states upheld requiring a photo id in 2008, sixers ago -- six years ago, and the justices said when it upheld that opinion that unfortunate the u.s. has a long history of voter fraud that's been documented by historians and journalists. opponents will say to that this is something that is unneeded and also the it is intended to suppress the vote of certain voters, particularly minority voters. we know that is not true also

for this reason. the voter id laws in a number of states has not been in place for many years. two of the states with the strictest voter id laws, the state requirement take -- require a voter a -- photo id arour georgia and indiana. their loss of any place since the 2008 presidential election. so we now have three federal elections with experience looking at turnout in those states. unlike what opponents will say to you and the story they've been repeating for years, turnout did not go down in those states. in fact, georgie which has a large african-american to black population, about 30%, and had a huge increase in the turnout of black and hispanic voters in 2008. also in 2010 when there was no, when barack obama was not on the ballot. and in 2012, our last presidential election, according

to the united states census bureau, the census bureau does a survey of voters after every election. and they also serve a nonvoters, people who did not vote. their census shows that black voters actually voted at a higher rate than white voters in the state of georgia with its voter id law in place. indiana, which has a voter id law that's been in place since 2008, that's a law that the u.s. supreme court upheld, according to the u.s. census bureau in the 2012 election, black voters outvoted white voters by more than 10 percentage points. so this idea that this is somehow suppressing peoples right to vote is simply not the case and the data shows that. in fact i think president obama actually agrees with the. he gave an interview about a

week ago in which he said, talking of voter id and other laws, but most of these laws are not preventing the overwhelming majority of folks who don't vote from voting. most people do have an id. most people do have a driver's license. most people can get to the polls. in fact, president obama said that the reason people don't vote in this country is basically a happy. that's what -- apathy. the american people actually agree with that. there have been numerous polls done on this particular issue, and the overwhelming majority of americans think that requiring an id is a commonsense requirement. and that polling by the way crosses all racial, ethnic and party lines. so a majority of democrats, a majority of republicans, majority of independent voters, majority of whites can budget of

hispanics in majority of blacks all think voter id is a commonsense reform. now that is not the only reform needed, although that's will be here to talk about today. one of the other problems we have discovered in which a number of states are trying to solve that problem is the fact that it's very easy for someone who is not a united states citizen to register and vote in our election. now that is against the law. under federal law that is a felony. so a number of states, however, who have found none citizen registering and voting have passed laws in kansas is one. arizona is another. george is a third. they have passed laws that require that when you register to vote you have to provide proof of united states citizenship. are all of these laws have been attacked in the courts.

however, the opposition has lost the majority of those cases. with only a few exceptions, all of the cases filed in state courts, all of the cases filed in federal courts trying to stop, for example, voter id laws, have failed. the reason is the courts have found that they are neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional. the proof of citizenship requirement, the importance of that, the importance of that was brought out just a week ago. a week ago several professors released a study where they looked at comprehensive congressional survey data, and they estimate that in the 2008 election, 6.4% of noncitizens in the united states voted illegally in that election. now, from a demographic

standpoint, the voting of noncitizens breakdown 80/20. in other words, about 80% vote for the democratic party, about 20% vote for the republican party. the professors in this study estimate that noncitizens voting illegally may have made the difference in a number of close elections in 2008. one of them being a united states senate race in the state of minnesota. in minnesota, the democratic challenger was finally declared the winner against the republican incumbent by 312 votes, out of 2.9 million votes cast in the state. enough noncitizens may have voted in that election two of changed the outcome.

was that significant? that was a very significant vote. why? because the democratic senator who was elected provided the 60th vote in the united states senate which passed obamacare, you know, the large health program pushed by the president and has been very controversial. so the fraud i in the election y have made quite a difference for every american in the country. the point is that all of these new, relatively new requirements although some of them have been around for many years, all are intended center to increase and improve the integrity of the election process. the evidence all shows it does not prevent people from being able to vote and getting to the polls. this is an important issue. but again i will and by saying that i've spoken to many groups

of election officials from around the world. i was on the federal election commission for two years, which is the federal agency which regulates the financing of federal campaigns. and, frankly, they were always a bit, the officials we would talk to were always a bit mystified by the argument going on here over these kind of the very commonsense election reforms. and i think 10 years from now, once these measures have been in place for many years, people will look back on these arguments and sit there and say, why in the world was the ever even any argument about this kind of the reform? thank you. >> and the very much for your comments and your information you shared. so professor levitt. >> thank you very much, staffan. and i will join my colleague for thanking all of you for being here.

it is a pleasure to be speaking to people from around the world, and to particular talking about trying to demystify exactly why this issue has become so controversial here. because i completely agree with my colleague, many of you are probably wondering what the fight is about. and part of that traces back to a very different system that we have here than that which you enjoy in some of the countries where you are from. like my colleague, i have both studied the issue of particular election administration requirements, and also this isn't just an academic exercise, i've also been a lawyer on the ground working with nonprofit organizations, working with campaigns in order to help real knowledgeable people vote. so i, too, come at this library practical perspective. and i think i share with my colleague a little bit of concern that this issue has

become extremely controversial. as root in the mornings program, it's one of the most controversial issues in american politics today in terms of the rules of the election. when there are other problems that impact the impact far more voters, the way that the american system conducts and call it the american system is already oversimplifying, the way that each state conducts its own different voter registration process almost certain impacts more voters, more regularly than the particular rules about voter identification. but i think there's a reason, i think there are several reasons why this issue has become so very, very controversial here. one has to do with a fight, a vigorous fight over the extent to which majorities may set election rolls that burden some

minorities. when it comes to the come and il explain this and did it, when it comes to requirements to show particular forms of identification at the polls, mr. von spakovsky is right, most americans have absolutely no problem presenting that documentation. and so it is unsurprising that most americans support rules showing that documentation. on the other hand, some americans have great deal of difficulty showing that documentation. and the fight here is over the extent to which most of us can make the rules harder for some of us. and that is a fight that resonates with our history, and i think has a great deal of vigor behind it today. this is also something of a tension between viewing voting as a mass process on individual

right. those are also two very, there are two sides of the same coin, elections involve both. but i think you hear different perspectives and the american debate quite often, and i can explain some of the controversies that a different approach to whether we're doing elections for most of us are doing elections for each eligible voter. and i think the third reason this is so controversial is because it's a fight, in some ways perhaps a proxy fight, or the extent to which burdens on some are unjustified by pressing need. that is, and extent to which we are willing to allow the government to make rules what the justification may not support the restrictions and adding those to disagree with some of the rules that some of our states have put in place question the justification as much as anything else.

so as a background, you heard yesterday from fat hall, among others, we have eligibility requirements year. not every person is eligible to vote. again, this varies state-by-state even for federal elections, and that something is also unusual, but in most states you have to be over 18 years old. you have to be, as mr. von spakovsky mentioned, in most elections assistance. you have to have legal residents in the jurisdiction, and you have to not be disenfranchised bby a conviction. you are just as the limitations on them. and because of his eligibility requirement it's important that we know that individuals who present themselves to vote on who they say they are because we determined whether they are eligible or not and it's important that we know that they are who they purport to be.

and i think there is why if not universal agreement that states have to have some way to make sure that voters are who they say they are. the controversy in the u.s. is not over whether states have to have some way to make sure that those who they are who they say they are. that is, the controversy is not over a fight between everybody has to show one particular identification card, or no safeguard at all. the fight is over the means by which states can require that people show that they are who they say they are. and that is a vigorous fight indeed as mr. von spakovsky mentioned, every state sets its own rules on this differently. there is no overriding federal standard, even for federal elections. most states give a fairly wide menu of ways in which a voter may arrive at the polls and show that he or she is who he or she

purports to be. but some say that an eligible voter may not cast a ballot ballot if he or she doesn't have a particular type of government issued id card with a fairly narrow set. and that, those relatively few states is where the bulk of the controversy is, is where almost all of the controversy is. why do we have this controversy? i think as i mentioned before it's because this restriction is put in place by what somebody is not a sufficiently good reason. if the procedure for prevent identity were very easy for every voter, this wouldn't be a controversy. and if the procedure for prevent identity were easy for most voters, difficult for some voters, but were in response to

an enormously pressing problem, that is if the need were urgent and sufficiently severe, to burden the rights of a few, we probably would have the controversy but nowhere near the level where it's at today. ..

there is a concern they will be making rules and imposing burdens by happenstance and not at random. i will talk a little bit and i will stop talking about the two halves of equation. it can be hard for some and burden may be justified and this is where i may differ from mr. spakovsky. one may have to show a government issued i.d. in this room particular seems that is unusual that amounts to any sort of a burden. in most of your countries that is commonplace. as mr. spakovsky mentioned we're only one of the western democracies where there is controversy in part because we're one of the only western democracies as decentralized system as we have and one of the only democracies where we put

the bulk of the onus on voters, rather than on affirmative government outreach. what do i mean by that? we don't have really any universal government identification system. we don't have a national identification that is affirmatively outbound to every resident. every resident is not given an i.d. we don't have a national registry. we don't have a system where the government seeks to provide documentation to every citizen and where there are, and we don't have a system where there is a very important benefit like a national health care system, which would natural encourage every american to seek this national i.d. in many of your countries you have, in some case as smaller population but also national systems where the government is far more actively involved in the lives of its citizens and also each eligible

voter. and you have to understand the fight here by understanding that is not the system we have indeed, if we had such a system you would probably see less controversy over the voter i.d. requirement issue in elections most americans end up through private initiative, having the sort of identification they need in the few states that require a particular card. but many, a small percentage, but a large number, don't. in one recent piece of litigation the system was several hundred thousand eligible americans citizens in one state did not currently possess the sort of identification that they would need in order to vote. and in america, if you don't have i.d., it can be quite difficult to get i.d. i have it. it is easy for me to show it. it is easy for me to renew it.

but if you aren't already in the system, it can be quite difficult to get. even when the identification card itself is free we require substantial underlying documentation. and that is often not. and once again, we don't have national birth registries. we don't have national institutions like that. and so some people are born off of the government grid and in order to get back on the government grid can be quite expensive, quite a bureaucratic hassle and quite difficult. some people have underlying documentation that does not reflect their current name, either because they have gotten married or because there was an error originally. and getting the appropriate kind of identification can require a court process, which is as you might expect, quite cumbersome. as a result, we know, and there have been reliable studies that

show this, that the burdens of a revick tiff rule on identification show one of several cards fall disproportionately on those of lower socioeconomic status. so they disproportionately burden the poor, they disproportionally burden the very young and elderly. and they disproportionately burden racial and ethnic minorities. mr. spakovsky mentioned it is not sure these laws have impact and see turnout in the elections and see turnout hasn't fluctuated much, or several states has gone up particularly among racial minorities. that's true but i don't think turnout is the right measure and one easy process proves this. if we had a law that said if you did not vote in 2012, you may

not vote period. turnout this year would not be much affected. most of the voters who come in the polls in 2014 will have voted in 2012. it is relatively uncontroversial. no impact on turnout but enassistantly 80 million americans would have lost the franchise. these laws are about those who have chosen to vote in the past but they are also about those who are eligible to vote and may choose to exercise that right in the future. even if turnout were the right measure, mr. spakovsky talked about two states with i.d. for some time, georgia, and indiana, and both of those states have the unusual feature of a presidential election that was contested with a minority candidate at the top of the ticket that in some ways drove turnout far more than what you would expect. the bottom line is, there is very little, even turnout were

the right measure, there is very little that we can know about the impact of laws like this, by looking at turnout period. the right way, i contest, is to ask voters conduct surveys, do you have the i.d. that you would need? would you face difficulty in getting the i.d. that you need? and those surveys reliably show and repeatedly show that a small percentage, but a large number of individual don't have and would face difficulty getting the eye dough that they need. one note and then i will wrap up on the other side of the ledger. so there's a burden for some but not for many. is there a pressing need to exact that burden? the united states has a low-grade problem of voter fraud and spakovsky is right that it exists. i think he exaggerates, responsible observers don't

claim there is no voter fraud in the u.s. there is and you heard yesterday doug shape pen mentioned local elections, most of all, most usually, local election is where you're going to find this low-grade level of voter fraud. it includes buying votes. it includes postal ballots. it infraud by officials. these are serious problems but they are not problems that requiring a particular i.d. card at the polls can possibly fix. many of the instances that mr. von spakovsky mentioned earlier in mississippi, pardon me, in connecticut, in tennessee, involved fraud but not any sort of fraud that a rule requiring i.d. at the polls can possibly fix. he did mention one case from yesterday. i saw it too. i'm not surprised that he brought it up, from new mexico, of an individual who went to the

polls and found somebody else had apparently voted in his name and that is the sort of fraud that some sort of identity verification could fix. i have looked for, as many examples of this as i could find, allegations since the year 2000 and in those 14 years, i'm now, thanks to yesterday's instance, to 35 instances in 14 years. that's at the same time that one billion, with a "b," ballots have been cast in america. it happens. but it's very, very rare and already more voters in indiana and georgia alone, the states that mr. von spakovsky mentioned, attempted to cast ballots and have been unable to do so because they did not procure the proper i.d. or could not procure the proper i.d. in time. already more voters in those two states have been unable to cast

a valid ballot then all of the instances of this type of fraud that we know of going back 14 years. how do we resolve this problem? i think there are many ways to verify that someone is who they say they are. while accommodating those who can not easily procure a particular type of photo i.d. card. and that's really what this site is about. whether there are accomodations for a few, or whether there are not accomodations for the few who may have trouble meeting the standard that the majority has imposed, that are relatively easy for many. the outcome, as a policy matter i think is uncertain. the outcome is a legal matter i think is uncertain. courts are still weighing in. each state's law is slightly different. courts are still weighing in state by state whether these laws are law full or not, whether they are constitutional

or not. and i think we will have to wait for several years yet before we arrive at a consensus. i think once we arrive at a consensus i agree with mr. von spakovsky, we will think back 10 years and wonder what this fight is about but i'm not sure the consensus will be on the most restrictive laws we is currently. >> thank you, professor. for your presentation. i think we have had two very, very good presentation. they have been clearly articulating the views and data supporting their respect testify views on it and i think they're very eager to hear your take on the debate in the u.s. and see how we can learn from each other. a couple of housekeeping issues before we embark on that. please state your name and your affiliation when you ask the question. we're having some of my colleagues here with microphones since this is being broadcasted live, so it is being captured properly. we do have your headsets for

translation. we have channel 7 english, 8 arabic, 9 french and 10 indonesia and 11 for spanish. we have 25 minutes for q&a. so please raise your hand if you have a question and we will take it from there. so, start with the gentleman in the front here. elliot. >> thank you very much. very interesting present attention indeed. for us we come from nepal, both of us. i'm chairman of the -- [inaudible]. we have our own history and we have our own system and i'm slightly confused whether, u.s. democracy, is, democracy we have

to learn and follow or we have to give some reason to have a proper system here or tomorrow, i don't know, what we should do but then we could have part, electoral rule for the -- so they can be identified from the name in the first place. secondly any of the identification systems which you having, voters are with him or her could help. and we would have hope that the federal law is passed by the country and each state has some sort of unique identification for you know, everything concluding the body. that is what we have part. we have doing the same thing for nepal. and these are some of the things, of the reason of mine

and, i was just thinking that just day before yesterday somebody voted for somebody else and what is the personality if the voters are voting for somebody else? do we have some sort of finality to the person who you identified for somebody else? if that is there, then what is the penalty and all that? and sometimes i get confused and particularly because i think the democracy is -- twice and you are left free to side on your own by all these states, like 50 states have their own systems. most of them have some i.d., some of them do not have it i think. and questions of burden are also there, yes. if we take back to nepal and in the previous election in 2008, we didn't have i.d. distributed

to each voters and we had very big, bulky little role and a lot of voters might have voted for somebody else and, so we introduced voter i.d. and biometric systems of electoral role and then this time around in 2013 we had a very good turnout from 61 to0%. and -- 80%. each voter was given identification cards. those who were in the little roll and that has made much difference because in our elections some other party has got in the house because there were other identification systems. this time around in the second elections, we had good elections of course and then some other parties got the opportunity to come in second and the first one in the 2008 elections turned to

be harder, right? so i think voters i.d. measured very much. there should be i.d. and proper systems for providing the opportunity to exercise important rights of individual cities and that is what we can understand that. we want to take something from the u.s. we would like, tried like this and let the states if we are going to have smaller states in our country, should we let those states decide on their own what they would like to do, that is democracy? or we should have one system which has to be implemented properly and systematically without problems. that is what i have confusion and i would like to get something from you, thank you very much. >> maybe we can take one more question and then we can let the panelists ask. so in the middle.

that's fine. >> merci. >> translator: i'm from the electoral council of haiti. thank you for the presentations that were very clear. i should like to ask one question regarding the need to have the photo i.d. card. if i understood the presentations appropriately the american system is based on trust, a system of trust and so you say that according to research the rate of fraud has increased and i'd like to quote professor von spakovsky who spoke about a study that has just been published last week where it was demonstrated that in this state of minnesota fraud was made the difference in the results of the election. my question is this, do you not

think that if we are not able to agree on the very need of having a voter i.d. card to vote when a citizen is going to vote, do you not think that this will have an influence one day on presidential elections in the united states? thank you very much. >> thank you very much. i think, hans, you start. >> part of your question, what's the punishment for, what we call election crimes. as you know, and this is related to the second part of your question, we have a federal system here. so we have both a federal government and state governments and under state law and under federal law election fraud is a crime. depending on what you do, it may be a felony, which means you can go to prison for more than a year. or it could be a misdemeanor,

which is a more minor crime. the program isn't that there aren't sufficient punishments. there are. the problem is that prosecutors don't tend to prosecute many of these cases. i mean some prosecutors do but for many prosecutors, election fraud is a low priority because you know, they're faced with very serious crimes. murder, rape, armed robbery. and election crime after an election is over doesn't seem like a very serious crime. also i have found many prosecutors, particularly on the local level, they don't like these cases because they're going to make one or the other political parties mad if they pursue them. and i give you a good example of this. you know we talked about noncitizen voting. when i was at the u.s. justice department where i worked for four years, the justice

department prosecuted a number of people who were not u.s. citizens, who had illegally voted in elections. that's a federal crime. i don't believe this administration has prosecuted a single non-citizen and in fact i know because i was there, three years ago, in fairfax county, virginia, where i'm on the election board, we discovered almost 300 people who were not u.s. citizens, who had registered to vote and about half of them had voted in prior elections. we sent information about that to the u.s. justice department so they could prosecute. they did nothing about it. >> we have a question from the second question was about the case in minnesota and, if it is not from i.d. card, could it not have ramifications in the presidential election. >> well, in fact something i

didn't get to say, which was that in the study about non-citizen voting, the professors concluded that another race, which may have affected the u.s. presidential race is that in north carolina, north carolina was a state that barack obama won in 2008 by only 14,000 votes. very small number of votes. north carolina i think has about 6 million registered voters. he won it by 14,000 votes. according to the calculations of these professors, that's well within the margin of non-citizens who may have voted in the state. and only a week ago, two weeks ago, election fecials in north carolina discovered that individuals who are in the united states illegally, but who have gotten an amnesty through the president's deferred action

program, they found, i think, almost 200 of them registered to vote in the state. so that is clearly an issue. >> if i can just respond for just one moment and actually on both questions, the study to which mr. von spakovsky keeps referring has been, i think with a lot of justice, heavily, heavily criticized. i hate to do this because it would be nice if every time somebody said the professors found, everyone just agreed and nodded their head, i'm a professor, i like that rule quite a bit but the study has been heavily criticized for its data and its methodology. and i think with very good reason. the authors extrapolated based on a response of five individuals on a survey that

massive numbers of non-citizens were voting and, for those of you who may be wondering was it really five peep, how could you do that, it really was, five people. those sorts of conclusions, when you blow them up nationwide, look rather large but i don't think that that's a study that actually proves what it set out to prove. there may well be a problem and there may well be some non-citizens who are voting. the question for me is always, is the policy that stops that going to create a bigger problem than it solves? so if in an effort to stop a few hundred non-citizens from voting, we stop several thousand or tens of thousands eligible citizens from voting, that is actually doing more harm to the integrity of the election than fixing it.

that is, this very same election in minnesota, yes, was decided by a few hundred votes but if eligible, legitimate voters had been prevented from casting their ballots by a law that secured the elections more broadly, that too would have changed the result of the election and that too would have been sign as widely unfair. the calculation here is no different from any other public policy, which is, the benefits should exceed the costs. or else it is not worth doing. i think part of this comes down to, how restrictive are the measures, to get at the the scale of the problem. this comes back to the first gentleman's point. there are many alternatives to having one or two or three or four particular government issued i.d. cards and one of the alternatives, is having the government affirmatively supply i.d. to every citizen. if that were the case, as i

mentioned before, i don't think we would have this controversy. it is much harder to do in a country the size and scale of the united states but that's one option. biometric solution. if you happen to have an i.d., show that i.d. if you don't, we'll take your picture. we'll have you sign an extra affidavit. there will be some extra security. that too is a means of testing your identity without excluding those who don't have a particular card. and i think there are many other options besides. the fight again is not about one i.d. system or trust alone. the fight is about the range of policy options that may increase security without excluding eligible voters. i think that is really the crux of the problem. >> thank you very much. some more questions? i see, look and see some of the women that want to ask some questions here as well? it has been very dominated by men in all the panels today.

i see there is one lady in the back that is willing to participate so hello, welcome. >> hello. vivian cruz, elections canada. i believe a system should be built to accommodate the majority so photo i.d. doesn't, i'm not bothered by that but a good system would have, for a better term off-ramps to accommodate knows that don't fall into it. i wonder if you tell us what some of those measures are of those who don't fall within the majority? mr. von spakovsky, if you could say why you feel they're sufficient, and professor levitt, why you feel they're not. >> sure. well like i said that every state that passed a photo i.d. law has also provided that anyone who doesn't already have one can get one for free. and, what's interesting about that is that the huge numbers of

people predicted by opponents that don't have an i.d., have proven to be completely wrong over the years and i give you an example of. that i have handed out a copy of the paper that i did looking at the state of georgia and in addition to showing turnout, it also shows the number of free i.d.s issued. and the numbers every year were like .5 of 1% of registered voters. tiny number of people, registered voters don't already have an i.d. compare that to the predictions of those who opposed the law that there would literally be hundreds of thousands of people without an i.d. second, one of the reasons i, i don't take at love the claims seriously about people not having an i.d., not being payable to get an i.d. is because, i've also hand out a copy of an article that wrote

where i did this i actually went and looked up the names of the witnesses that were presented in the lawsuit filed against that voter i.d. law back eight years ago. these were all people who swore under oath in court that they didn't have an i.d., but most importantly, they wouldn't be able to get one of the free i.d.s. it would just be too difficult. well the court upheld the law, it went in place, became effective. what i did, i went and got names of all these people who swore they would never be abe to vote and i checked their voting records. since the lawsuit. and i found that all of them had been voting in election after election in the state. now, every state also provides what is called a provisional ballot. so if you show up at the polling place, and you don't have your i.d., many states say that they will give you, for example, five

days to come back to the election office with an i.d. and your vote will count. some states have gone as far as to allow another off-ramp to another photo i.d. requirement. there are some states will have a, an affidavit that you can fill out where two other voters, for example, can swear that they know you and that you are resident of the state and then you get to vote. but, my point is, these laws have been in place now for many years and it just hasn't been a problem for people being able to get an i.d. >> sort of. so from indiana, from the very same state that mr. von spakovsky mentioned, there have been thousands of provisional ballots cast by people who went to the polls and did not have

the proper i.d. there, that were not counted. many of which were cast by individual who had been casting ballots for decade. we can't due to secrecy laws in the state and every state is again different in this respect, know for sure who those people are. only the government in the state knows. but, you would have to believe that none of those people were actually eligible to believe that this, these sorts of laws have not ha had an impact. provisional ballots are a useful fail-safe but as mr. von spakovsky mentioned, some of the states with the most restrictive laws, require you show identification in order for those ballots to count. so it is a useful placebo on election day but for someone who does not actually have the i.d. in question, it does them