A couple of weeks ago the Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked a new Texas law that would require a government issued photo ID in order to be eligible to vote. According to Attorney General Eric Holder and the rest of the DOJ, the law would unfairly target Hispanic voters. I have to say that I disagree (surprise, surprise) with their reasons behind blocking what I think is an important measure to prevent fraud. What I want to know is what is so wrong with having a proper form of identification to vote? I really don't see a problem with that. Every time I go to the store and buy something with my credit card I have to show my driver's license. When I opened a bank account, when I cash a check or when I board a plane I also have to show an ID. In fact, when I come to ACC to take a test in the testing center I have to show proof of who I am so that they know that I am not cheating. I don't complain about this because I understand why they have to do it.
In the headlines recently, there was a cheating scandal involving Long Island High School students who took the SAT and ACT tests. Several students were paid by other students to take their tests for them. After that discovery, new rules are being established in order to prevent such cheating. Students are now required to upload, mail in and have photos printed on their admission tickets and on the roster at the testing centers. They believe that photo identification is the best way to insure that the person who takes the test is who they say they are. The Texas Voter ID Law is attempting to put this concept to use.
It is a fact that more and more undocumented people are coming across the border from Mexico and Latin America to Texas. If I were to visit Mexico I would be required to show ID, like a passport, and when I cross over into their country I have to comply with their laws. I believe that requiring photo identification can help to control and keep corruption in check. We want to prevent it from becoming a huge problem in the future. So let's work on it now and not make it a complicated issue.
According to Tom Perez, the Justice Department's head of civil rights division, the new Texas law would create undue hardship on the Hispanic population. These hardships include: not having the means to get a vehicle, living too far from a driver's license office or not being able to go during the office's limited operating hours. Is that all they could come up with? I think these are weak reasons and and just another way for Democrats to pander to Hispanics. I know that undocumented workers can get cars, but apparently don't bother to get a driver's license or insurance so I just don't buy that excuse. Here are my solutions. The Government has the power to make it more affordable, and build more driver's licenses offices while creating jobs at the same time. They can also stay open later on certain days of the week and maybe once a month they could actually open on the weekend. If the Government is serious about treating everyone fairly and equally at the voting booth, it needs to begin with them. I believe that voting is a right and a privilege and that everyone should have the opportunity to vote, but it should be done properly.
Democrats like to complain that voter fraud is a myth. I disagree. I believe their reason for blocking the Texas Voter ID Law is another political ploy aimed at stirring up disorder instead of creating a solution to a growing problem. So I have a question: For an upcoming trip can I be exempted from having to go to the trouble of paying for a passport ($165), buying gas so that I can drive to the post office to apply for it, and waiting weeks for my passport even though everyone else has to do it and it's the law? Because I think it creates unnecessary hardship for me. So can I?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteComment Part 1 of 2:
ReplyDeleteIn the article, titled “Let the Pandering Begin…” the author expresses her disapproval of the recent ruling by the U.S. Department of Justice which blocked Texas from requiring government-issued photo identification to vote because it would unfairly target Hispanics. When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, its purpose was to protect minorities from being disenfranchised, especially in southern states where state officials were particularly resistant to enforcing the 15th Amendment which states that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Jurisdictions covered by the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the U.S. District Court determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and effect. I believe Texas Republicans have challenged this ruling and continue in their efforts to undermine the Hispanic population’s voting potential through this law to retain their majority rule in the House and Senate.
While the writer’s cited examples of opening a bank account or boarding a plane require photo identification are valid, there are several reasons that merit examination for another perspective on the opposing side of the topic. For example, students could be unfairly targeted from voting if they do not have a driver’s license and can only provide school-issued photo identification. Also, due to the large and ever-increasing Hispanic population in Texas, the voter identification requirement could certainly encumber this group of voters and other minorities from participating in elections. In many rural communities of Texas, people have to travel a farther distance to obtain a driver’s license and in these economic times, a government-issued identification may pose a financial hardship when it is not an otherwise justifiable necessity for some people in order to vote.
Comment Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law’s study entitled the Truth About Fraud, there is little evidence to substantiate that voter fraud exists at a prevalent level to sway elections one way or another. In fact, only a minute amount of illegal voting can be authenticated and most of these allegations of fraud have been found to be conjecture or decisively invalidated. Some of these “mistakes” include clerical or typographical errors, incorrect registration records, dual registrations, or incorrectly being identified as voting twice for the same election, to name some instances. As mentioned in this study, voter fraud is usually an excuse by a losing candidate to claim a skewed election and in this case, another attempt by Texas legislators who want to add voter fraud in addition to redistricting Texas maps favorably for the Republican Party. It does not appear from this report that requiring photo identification can help control and keep corruption in check when there is no solid evidence to support a widespread problem with voter fraud.
There is nothing wrong with having a proper form of identification to vote. However, without investigating the reasoning to enforce such a law, it could negate the efforts by minorities to maintain their voting privileges which have been so hard fought throughout the history of our country. Moreover, in light of the low voter turnout in Texas with few exceptions, people who go to the voting polls have taken the time to exercise their right to vote and made a decision on their choice of candidates purposely. It seems unlikely that a large percentage of these people are making a concentrated effort to defraud the election process. In addition, federal voter fraud is punishable by five years in prison, a $10,000 fine and applicable state penalties which should deter someone from casting a single vote that probably will not make a difference in the election.
Finally, making a choice to go on a trip which requires a passport is a decision the writer has made for a planned event to enter another country and not a freedom entitled as a United States citizen. The fee, gasoline and waiting period to receive the passport are responsibilities to obtain the passport. It is not in the same category as the free right that eligible, registered voters would have with a required government-issued photo identification fee associated to cast a ballot and is essentially a modern day poll tax to disenfranchise legitimate voters.
http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf