What About Voter ID?
As we move closer to the Primaries and then the General Election in November, one argument keeps coming to the surface - the Voter ID. It will be no shock to anyone that reads my blog that I'm in favor of a Voter ID to maintain accuracy, fairness, and legitimacy in our election process. In this episode (can I say that for a blog or is article better?) I will deal specifically with the argument against a Voter ID. Like Representative/Manager Schiff with the current impeachment trial, I think the argument against is disingenuous in its presentation. The only real reason to be against a Voter ID is your intent to violate election rules by overwhelming the system with invalid votes (illegal alien/deceased/multiple) in an attempt to change the expected outcome of an election.
Let's begin with the primary reason the Left is against Voter ID: Many (up to 11%) of the population don't have a valid government issued ID. Really?! These same people that either cannot afford, or don't have the ability to get a government ID receive benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services, which needs an ID. We'll cover this a little later, but the argument here on its own lacks any merit. In order to get any job - part time, low paying jobs to high salaried, full time jobs you have to fill out an I-9 Form for Employment Eligibility Verification by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. This form requires one or two forms of ID, one of which must be government issued and one that must have your photo. Our current unemployment rate in the the US is 3.6%. This means that 3.6% of working age, legal voting adults are the only ones without a job. 11% fraudulently named by the Left is a complete lie and a fabrication of numbers for low-information voters to use to justify this outrageous claim. Maybe they're adding undocumented workers to their numbers - who can't vote anyway. Either way, this argument is a complete lie.
Coupled with this untruth is the following argument that many who don't have an ID can't get one due to the costs - not just due to the cost of the ID, but the cost of supporting documents and travel to the locations where one gets the ID. Again, the issue is based on the premise that over 10% don't have an ID; a lie which we already dealt with. However, I will address this a little later.
It reduces voter turnout. OK - let's assume for a second that the great majority have an ID - something we already proved. Why would there be low voter turnout? Beside the idea that both sides typically produce bad options (Romney/Obama/Clinton/Dole/Mondale/Gore - the list goes on), what other reason would someone who is legally allowed to vote not want to either show up to vote or get an absentee ballot? Ya - I can't think of one either; stupid point. With this argument, the Left is merely trying to make their overall number of reasons look exhaustive, but the reasons need to be able to pass the reasonable test: Is this argument one that a reasonable person with at least normal levels of intelligence and understanding would think is a valid point? The answer is an emphatic "No".
Minorities disproportionally lack IDs. OMG! This again?! Another fraud being perpetuated on us through low-information people. It's just another way to try to identify the 11% who don't have an ID - yes, another lie to try to explain their previous lie.
Some IDs are not accepted. OK - for the first time we get to a real point. Maybe they should have led with this one. There are multiple examples in states where ID Laws are in force where the ID that someone provides is not accepted. Maybe they tried to use a Student ID, an Assistance ID, a State Employee ID, or even a Veteran ID. There needs to be a list of IDs that, in order to receive, a person had to already show a valid Government ID. If their Government ID (Driver's License, State ID, Military ID, etc...) is not currently valid - i.e. needs to be renewed, but hasn't yet - I can see them trying to use another ID. In order to go to school, you have to provide citizenship verification; in order to get your Veteran ID, you have to show your DD214; in order to get an Assistance ID, you had to prove you are eligible to receive assistance. The point is, if in order to receive any of these IDs, one must show a valid ID that was valid then, but no longer valid at the time of an election, the ID in question needs to be allowed. An ID may not be a valid Government ID, but if a valid Government Id is required to get it, it should be allowed.
Minorities have their IDs questioned or challenged more frequently. This is the other good point, and it's sad that we still have to address it. There is a process for challenging a vote. I worked as a Precinct Committeeman in the Indianapolis area prior to moving out to California. Each major Party has an individual who is at the poll and can challenge anyone's vote, as they see fit. Maybe because they know the person voting no longer lives in the precinct; maybe they know that this person has previously voted, either in person or via absentee ballot. The point is, the process is in place. However, the process should only be exercised after the successful verification of the presented ID by the person. The ID itself, being a verification should not be challenge-able, since it verifies the voter, but not an issue with the vote itself. If the voter's ID is not verified, the challenge never need come into play.
I believe I have shown that the argument against voter ID is a fraudulent argument. I chose my word carefully: I did not mean false argument or erroneous one; I meant fraudulent. The whole purpose of disallowing Voter ID to be part of the process is to leave room for fraudulent voting without an easy means to protect against it. Contact your State Representative and make sue to pester them often about your state setting up and enforcing an effective and fair Voter ID law.