The Supreme Court has ruled that it is OK for a state to require voters show a photo ID in order to vote, throwing local blogger The Crone Speaks into a tizzy.
Not everyone has a certified birth certificate lying about, the cost to obtain that document is around $10, plus time and money to get to the point of even ordering one’s certified birth certificate. Then there is the time (including travel) and cost of updating/obtaining a Social Security card, then the time and cost of getting to a Motor Vehicle agency that provides photo ID’s. So, no, obtaining a photo ID is NOT free. It may be free at the point of obtaining the ID at the motor vehicle office, but to get to that point can be costly for quite a few people.You know, the last time I checked, you needed a photo ID to cash a check, fly on a plane, rent a car, or to get a library card. Obviously, the benefits of having a photo ID extend far past voting, so why assign all the costs of obtaining one to voting?
And isn't ensuring that only those eligible to vote do vote worth a little bother? Voting is one of the few activities I can think of where the state has a vested interest in confirming identification.
The AP story has this bit of inadvertent humor towards the end. When discussing programs to ease the burden of acquiring a photo ID for the poor, Bob Brandon, president of Fair Elections Legal Network, a nonpartisan network of election lawyers said, "Who's going to show up and sign an affidavit saying 'I'm poor'?"
Umm, the same folks who show up and sign one to get WIC, Welfare, etc?
Posted by Rich at April 29, 2008 9:11 PM | TrackBackThe Indiana law does not allow alternative forms of ID to vote as the state does to get a drivers license or government assistance.
Of course the whole thing could be easily rectified if each state issued a government ID when applying for government assistance or a drivers license, since each state is required by law to ask if an individual wants to be on the voter rolls. But, there would be no fun in that -- then you wouldn't be able to yell sloth.
Speaking of sloth, shouldn't it require some sort of effort to vote? When America was founded, the framers of the Constitution obviously felt that a responsible electorate would require that the franchise be earned in some fashion, hence the poll tax.
By requiring you to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak, they accomplished two things. First, in order to pay the tax, you had to be earning some sort of income, i.e. be a productive member of society. Second, people tend to take things more seriously when there's money involved.
Today, we've gone in the opposite direction. If you have a pulse, you have a vote.
Are we better off, or worse?
Posted by: rich on May 5, 2008 7:42 PM