«

»

Apr 21

The case for Voter ID

Author’s note – I apologize for not posting in an extended period of time.  I’ve had a lot of things on my mind as of late, most of which I can’t discuss here.  I hope to get back to regular postings soon.

In 2011, the Texas Legislature drafted, like many other states, a law that requires presenting a Photo ID to vote. The Department of Justice quickly challenged that law under the preclearance rule of the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

Texas Driver's License, Voter Registration Card and "I Voted" Sticker

This comes as undercover reporters in other parts of the country have demonstrated how easy it is to get ballots (and presumably vote) as someone other than themselves.  This includes celebrities, high-ranking Government officials and even the deceased.

At the same time, those who oppose Voter ID are the same ones who mandate a Photo ID be used to do any other business with the Government.

The “discrimination” that they claim would happen if Voter ID laws are put into effect should cause greater outrage at the discrimination in Welfare offices, Courthouses, and even their own offices as people there to “conduct business” have to show a Photo ID, much like they should at the voting booth.

The only difference is their security, versus security of the right to vote.  In my opinion, there is no difference between the two.

Some groups claim a voting registration card is the only ID necessary to vote, and while it could be considered, there is no way to verify that the signature on the voting register, the signature on the post card and the signature on the voting registration match.  Until a method is foolproof even for that, a voting registration card is not enough.  In Texas, the voting registration cards are a postcard, and as such, are open to being intercepted before the voter receives it, and used by anyone to cast a ballot.

The fact is that residents in seven states now need photo ID to vote. The Department of Justice under the Voting Rights Act has challenged at least three more. These challenges show that the “Preclearance” requirement puts an undue burden on the states that must adhere to it. This week, Arizona won a victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on their Voter ID law. Facts have also been revealed that the Department of Justice may not have enough evidence to show the laws will disenfranchise voters.

It is long past time for the Department of Justice to clear these “Preclearance” states of their Voter ID laws.  The states have grown past the “Jim Crow” laws that scarred them during the middle of the 20th Century.  It is also long past time for we the people to have assurances that our vote will count, and not nullified by fraudulent voting.

About the author

Michael Jones

Michael Jones is the founder of On The Spot Communications and On The Spot Blog.

A native of Ottawa, Kansas (approximately 60 miles South-West of Kansas City), he was born in the early 70's and lived most of his early life without traveling far from home.

He has since lived in Lenexa, Kansas (suburb of Kansas City), Houston, Texas, and now resides in Frisco, Texas (north of Dallas, Texas). He has had the experience of traveling to Tokyo, Japan and Tel Aviv, Israel, as well as numerous places around the USA.

A self-professed computer geek, when Michael's not working in his telecommunications job, he enjoys Model Railroading and Paintball.

Michael Jones is the founder of On The Spot Communications and On The Spot Blog.
More about Michael »

Follow Michael:

Permanent link to this article: http://onthespotblog.com/the-case-for-voter-id/

Bad Behavior has blocked 52 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Close