You need photo identification to board an airplane, write a check, purchase age-restricted products and gain access to certain buildings. So what's wrong with requiring photo IDs of citizens who show up to vote?
Critics say the Voter ID law creates a barrier to voter participation. They compare it to the "poll tax" that discouraged blacks from voting in the South during the 19th century.
What nonsense.
There is no denying that in the past, officials in many states used a variety of tactics to skirt the 15th Amendment, which prohibits states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race. But this isn't 1865 or even 1965, when the Voting Rights Act was passed to put more teeth into the amendment. People who want to vote can.
Even if someone fails to provide proper identification, they can vote on a provisional ballot. Of the nearly 1,289 Hillsborough voters who cast provisional ballots in January's presidential primary, 91 were submitted by people lacking proper identification. Still, all their votes counted because their signatures matched the signatures on file at the supervisor of elections office.
A compelling reason for requiring proper identification came to light in an Indiana case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Faye Buis-Ewing was registered to vote in two states, Florida and Indiana. When she tried to vote in Indiana in November 2006, poll workers refused to accept her Florida driver's license as a valid ID for voting in Indiana.
The Seventh Circuit found the photo ID requirement to be a reasonable regulation on elections. The Supreme Court should agree.
By opposing an ID requirement, critics encourage Election Day shenanigans.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement
Advertisement