Thirty-three, or 66%, of the states in the U.S. require some sort of ID at the polling place. Voters must present some form of official ID (government issued, usually) to be able to prove that they are legitimate electors. The strictness of the laws varies considerably but it is clear that two-thirds of the state legislatures felt it was enough of an issue to enact laws.
Proponents argue that it helps to prevent voter fraud of all kinds. Opponents, at least in some states, point to a lack of actual fraud reports. They go on to oppose voter ID by saying it would disenfranchise many people. They often name those groups such as the poor, minorities, and the elderly. They assume these groups are not smart enough to get the required ID card. Wisconsin’s strict law was put on hold after a circuit court judge ruled the law was unconstitutional, so that challenge will move through the judicial system, or the law will be modified to stand up to constitutional tests.
Voting for our representatives in government is an unchallenged right. The actual vote has become increasingly important in so many close cases that the system must get it right the first time with adequate proof of legitimate electors. To have voters show a Driver’s License, or a non-driver official state ID (provided at no cost to those who need it), does not seem like an unreasonable burden. Photo ID is required to fly, get a hotel room, obtain a passport, purchase pseudoephedrine, and myriad other things. No one seems to protest those ID requirements, yet voting is something sacred in a free society, and although it cannot be unduly restricted, as with a poll tax, asking you to prove who you are before you cast that vote protects the very essence of representative democracy.
2 comments:
Sorry, on this subject you are mostly wrong. Voter ID has been solution in search of a (real) problem. Strict voter ID laws are used to discourage people who are more transitory and lower income. How would you feel if you and all of your friends had to provide proof of residency every time they voted? Do you think that some of them would just not bother to vote?
That is what Wisconsin law does is discourage voting for those who move a lot, which affects students and lower income residents to a much greater degree. Did you know that 1 of your grandsons did not absentee vote in June because he did not believe he met the residency requirements of the new law?
You do not need to have a current address on your DL to buy liquor, fly, get a hotel room, obtain a passport, purchase pseudoephedrine, and myriad other things. However, if you do not have it on your DL, you have to go searching for bills. What if you’re a student living at home and don’t have bills? So, you might ask why not get your DL license updated? You can update the DMV for free online, but to get a new replacement license it is $35. So, just get a new voter ID? You cannot have both, you have to surrender your DL to get an ID.
We are putting obstacles in the way for some people to vote and not others. Voting is a sacred obligation and should be encouraged, not discouraged. When you discourage more valid voters, than you correct in fraud, you have gone too far in the law. Wisconsin needs to relax the type and address requirements for voting.
Wel sir, I am glad I stirred your more liberal leanings again (remember when you were a staunch conservative? I do). I guess what you are saying is that the "devil is in the details" and I will have to agree with you there. The "Catch-22"s you refer to should also be cleaned up to make this process less cumbersome. On site accessible computer databases might be the answer but the "privacy" people would pass out. I will go so far as to say that voting should be as simple as showing a government photo ID. If the address is incorrect, then a provisional ballot can be cast and the clerk should be responsible for verifying the new data.
Post a Comment