We’d better have a good reason to disenfranchise voters
I understand how many people think at first glance that the Missouri voter ID bill would have been good. We all want to prevent voter fraud. What can be easier than presenting our ID?I was once skeptical until I found out that it is not that easy to get the things you need for a Missouri ID. I am 39 years old and a quadriplegic so I have no need for a drivers license. For identification I use my old student ID, library card, and Columbia transit identification. I asked my parents to find my birth certificate and they looked for a few months without success. My dad then drove a 150 miles from his house to the county capital of my birth place (and then pay $20) back to his house and then an hour and a half to give the birth certificate to me and back home. I then spent a half a day at the motor vehicle department getting my ID. I was able to get that done because I had family support. Not everybody is that lucky. There are many more convoluted and complicated cases of people who were born a long time ago many states away or students with out to state IDs. This Missouri ID legislation is naturally biased against people who do not have drivers licenses or change their last names which means this disproportionately affects people with disabilities and women. If we are going to disenfranchise voters, we better have a really good reason. We will inevitably turn away people who are American citizens who have very little power over our government except for one thing-their constitutionally protected right to vote but we will even take that away. Driving is considered a privilege but voting is a right. Do we need another barrier to people who cannot drive? Considering that there has not been one documented case of voter ID fraud in Missouri, do we really want to take the vote away from American citizens who just want to vote?
Bob Pund
Columbia, Mo.
It appears that the Republicans who support these laws (I hesitate to call them conservatives) are taking the position that they’d rather disenfranchise one citizen than risk a fraudulent vote. It seems to be based on the assumption that those disenfranchised would vote Democrat anyway, so it’s all good.
Lisa may be resorting to a bit of hyperbole, but she DOES have an important point: Those demanding this law need to be supportive of reforming the process by which ID documentation can be obtained. In order for a this to work (and I support the IDEA), then obtaining the identification has to be a relatively easy and painless process.
I’d rather risk one fraudulent vote cast in an election that risk disenfranchising one voter who has trouble getting the right ID documentation. Just, I suppose, as I’d rather one guilty person go free in court than risk imprisoning one innocent person.
This is only one part of the overall election reform process that is sorely needed. There needs to be an easy way, within the federal system, of insuring that ‘one person, one vote’ is actually provable. Some sort of cross-referencing system is needed…one that works across state lines. Some consistent standard for voting technology is required….one that provides some sort of verifiable paper trail for ever vote. Last, some consistent set of guidelines for what happens on election day is needed…to insure that everyone who is legally entitled TO vote actually has the opportunity to cast the ballot and have it correctly counted.