Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 12 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Election ID law a ‘poll tax’
Published Friday, November 2, 2007
Requiring voters to show photo identification to participate in federal elections is the modern equivalent of the “poll tax,” one Minnesota lawmaker contends. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., introduced a bill this week that would ban requirements for photo identification in federal elections. Ellison, along with other voter-rights advocates, has hit on an important point.
Minnesota does not require photo identification of voters, despite some attempts by state lawmakers to change that practice. Ellison’s bill would force all states to conform to that practice, on the theory that requiring photo identification tends to discriminate against the poor, the elderly and minorities – those who are least likely to have a driver’s license or passport with their photograph.
If there was any real evidence of systematic, widespread voter fraud at the polls, then there might be a need for photo identification. But the bigger risks of voter fraud come in the tallying process. The reality is that America desperately needs more people to show up to vote, because that is the basis of democracy. Putting new requirements on voting only serves to reduce participation – and addresses a problem that does not truly exist.
We’re pleased that Rep. Ellison is seeking to extend Minnesota’s open voting practices to the nation as a whole. We hope his bill becomes law.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by eripsni (anonymous) on November 2, 2007 at 1:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are a legal citizen of this country, then you should have a government issued photo ID. It's not that hard to get one if you should be able to get one. If you're not a citizen of the country, you should not be able to vote. Period.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on November 2, 2007 at 3:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Last time I checked this was a free country requiring noone to carry an ID. (Unless you're driving; then you're engaged in a privilege). Voting is a constitutional right and only requires registration beforehand. I certainly don't want to see a day when I have to pass by check points and here the words "PAPERS PLEASE". The idea of anyone having to show any kind of ID to an official of our government is revolting to me. Regardless of what some people may think, Americans don't need to carry or show any ID to anyone. That's the way I'd like to keep it.
Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on November 2, 2007 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Eripsni seems to be forgetting that IDs cost money.
Posted by freda (anonymous) on November 3, 2007 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Socialist Elizabeth, you are belittling the lower income people by telling them they can't afford an ID card of less that $20 once every 4 years. Don't you feel bad belittling people based on income?
Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on November 3, 2007 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
No, I'm stating that requiring an ID to vote discriminates against those who can't afford one.
Posted by freda (anonymous) on November 3, 2007 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
But who, really, couldn't afford one? Having the the fee on a sliding scale isn't even necessary, since $10, $15 or $20 every 4 years to ensure you have a photo ID is not unaffordable. Many of the people you say can't afford an ID card find $20 or more a week to buy lottery tickets or play bingo. We can all find something to spend money on that we don't really need. Maybe your real argument is you don't think poor people have enough strength of charachter to save for and spend money on what they need. Finding $15 once every 4 years is not difficult. Your argument just doesn't hold water.
Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on November 3, 2007 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freda, please don't read into my arguments or re-state what you think I'm arguing, especially so inaccurately and with the gross generalizations you feel the need to insert.
Elections are every year, not every four years. Requiring an ID to vote would also require an ID with your current address (to make sure you're at the correct polling location). Thus, if the address on your ID isn't your correct address, you wouldn't be able to vote. So, it could be a new ID every year, not every 4 years as you state. Maybe you can't comprehend it, for whatever reason, but the $26.75 fee required for regular driver's license might be something someone would have to save up for, or it just might not be in the budget when the alternative is making rent or feeding one's children.
Further, the process to actually GET the ID is rather arduous and would require taking significant time away from work, probably unpaid time off.
Voting is a constitutional right. Read Amendments 15, 19, 24, and 26 if you question this or have forgotten.
Would a lot of people be affected by a law requiring voters to have a valid ID with their current address to vote? That's debatable. However, that's irrelevant when discussing whether such a rule would be constitutional.
Posted by Elizabeth (anonymous) on November 3, 2007 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, one more thing in case my last post wasn't precise enough for you.
IDs cost money. Requiring an ID to vote will require voters to pay a monetary sum in order to vote. This is a poll tax. Poll taxes are specifically forbidden in the 24th amendment. Thus, requiring an ID to vote is unconstitutional.
Posted by freda (anonymous) on November 3, 2007 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Uff - Da Fee Da. Wiser heads will prevail, especially in Nov.2008.
Posted by bigkahunaburger (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait a minute, Elizabeth, we have a constitution? Where have I been for the last seven years?
Posted by randock (anonymous) on November 5, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ellison's constitution protects those who can't or won't take responsibilities. Citizens have the right to vote - not ineligible people like aliens and convicted criminals. The government could easily take care of two problems with an ID card - identify non-citizens and clean up the voting mess. Of course Ellison wouldn't see voter fraud - Has anyone read about what Mayor Daley did for years in Chicago, or the stories of the buses picking up folks in St Louis, giving them folding cash and escorting them to the polls to vote?
Yes, the constitution gives us the right to vote, but only those who are legal citizens of the USA. If poverty is an issue, free ID's can be given just like we give free school lunches,food, clothing, rent vouchers, day care to those who are in need.
Posted by Jerry (anonymous) on November 6, 2007 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Question: Why is it that the majority of lower income and minorities vote democratic? No wonder they want free ID cards. Next they will want ballots in spanish and set by the border down south handing out ID's attached to the ballots. If citizens really want to vote, they will find a way, legally. We shouldn't have to count on the taxpayers for everything!!!!!!!! Its a good thing our forefathers had more ambition than many do today!
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)