It's amazing to me that anyone can argue that shouldn't have to have identification to vote. I don't pretend that republicans are coming from a pure place when they want this but I also don't believe democrats are coming from a pure place either. You should need a photo id to vote. It seems very simple to me.
The thought is that it targets certain demographics disproportionately. On the surface, it doesn't seem like anything is. And that's exactly part of the problem because the general public has the same perception. But it becomes thorny when you consider the previous point that I made. Well, a simple Google search on my end (should have been your end) finds this article, that states that up to 11% of eligible voters don't have government-issued IDs: http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/voter-id This one from CBS gives a little further insight, and brings up another point that this could mean additional nightmares from an administrative standpoint: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-voter-id-law-would-exclude-up-to-700000-young-minorities/ The part that I emboldened is concerning to me. You can't even buy alcohol with an expired license; I'm sure they'd apply the same logic to voting. And what about suspensions? It gives way to a lot of other restrictions, none of which should have anything to do with someone's right to vote. So anyone with this situation (or who can't afford to maintain auto insurance) now has to go get a photo ID made just to vote?
Yes, their phone poll reflected this, but some estimates are lower. On the other hand, actual numbers from the U.S. Department of Transportation records shows that there are 205.8 million valid drivers licenses in America, meaning there are 19 million more individuals with photo ID than there are registered voters. It's difficult to maintain that photo ID is hard to obtain. That is my point. They can be gotten with the same documentation that you must provide to vote. Carrying a photo ID has become a part of American life. You can't cash a check, drive, board a plane, or check into a hotel without one. That's why it doesn't seem unreasonable to require one in order to protect our most important privilege of citizenship. Hell, a much larger percentage of eligible voters don't register or never vote. I suspect that 11% falls mostly on the apathetic rather than the poor and elderly. I just don't see this as attempted disfranchisement as much as encouraging responsible identification that we require for so many other far more trivial things, like buying a Sudafed. Like I said initially, I don't think either side has a case. The most unreasonable thing that I can see would be to spend the money required to politically pass and physically implement changes to a law that affects few and solves a problem that is small. If our politicians cannot find compromise on a matter so inconsequential, how can they ever solve major problems. How hard is that, really? Take the same documents that polls accept to the DOT and get a state photoID instantly. Then you never have to carry around your birth certificate and other important ID papers again. Free in many states, it's $17 in Louisiana.
