Here is a short list of things you need a valid photo identification in order to do: adopt a pet, purchase a home, automobile, or gun; drive, get a bank account, obtain a passport, write a check, apply for a loan, get medical care, purchase insurance, receive welfare, social security, or food stamps, buy cigarettes or alcohol, etc, etc, etc. Yeah you can see more of the list here. I know it is not all-inclusive, nor is everything on it exactly correct, but let us face the truth here, you need to have a valid identification to do a lot of normal everyday things in this country. If you need a valid identification to do so many things, then logic dictates that nearly all who are of age will have some form of valid id. So why is there such push back against requiring identification for those wishing to execute the most important civic duty we have as Americans? Yeah, I am talking about the vote.
Voting is the one thing in the United States where almost no identification is required to cast a ballot. I know that this precedent harkens back to the Jim Crow era South and before that as large-scale disenfranchisement after the passage of the fifteenth amendment in 1870 led to many Supreme Court challenges and ground breaking cases that ensured the vote would be available for all of age who wanted to take part in the electoral process. But those days are long gone, Jim Crow is dead, voter disenfranchisement is a rare thing in this country, usually taking place either legally, i.e. for felons, or accidentally, i.e. purging the roles of deceased persons and getting a live one. The amount of voter disenfranchisement cases that have actually reached the courts are phenomenally low considering our population. So what is it that these people are screaming about?
It turns out that voter id laws would hinder certain causes, mainly the cause of voter fraud to turn an election towards a certain result through the casting of fraudulent ballots. Voter ID laws might have kept all those dead persons from voting in Chicago in the 60’s for instance. Voter ID would force a measure of accountability and oversight into the electoral process. For those attempting to sway elections by casting multiple votes for any one person or party would be hindered by this action. It would cripple the strategies of many supposed third-party organizations. That is why voter ID laws are categorized as a racist attempt at ending minority and low-income participation in elections. But here is the thing, the organization formerly known as ACORN submitted 1.3 million voter registrations in 2008. Yet, over 1/3 of those registrations were found to be fraudulent and many ACORN activists ended up convicted and in jail for voter fraud. In fact, there are numerous cases of voter fraud in the United States that a voter ID law would have thwarted. Yet, there are those including the Attorney General who have made the claim that it was racist and placed an undue restraint on those who would have to acquire an identification to vote.
I say it is a blatant attempt to subdue the will of the people by not having voter ID laws, using fraudulent voting techniques to game the electoral system and steal elections. Who is more likely to be right? I mean after all you need an identification to do many, many things that are considered normal, everyday, and mundane. So, you should have an ID to vote. The logic is there, sticking fingers in ears and screaming racist, racist, racist will not change the fact. I know it is hard to give up an advantage that provides a party with leg up on the competition, but when that advantage comes as a result of criminal activity, it should really be stopped.