People who are against voter ID laws say that they’re discriminatory against minorities because minorities have a hard time getting ahold of a photo ID.
But their argument doesn’t make any sense if you consider that you need a photo ID if you want to:
- Drive a car
- Board an airplane
- Board a train
- Board a cruise ship
- Go to a doctor’s appointment
- Go to the emergency room
- Get admitted to the hospital
- Get a blood test
- Get copies of your medical records
- Buy nasal decongestant that has pseudoephedrine in it
- Open a bank account
- Rent an apartment
- Apply for a mortgage
- Apply for a job
- Open a utility account (like for your electricity or water)
- Write a check
- Buy a firearm
- Buy alcohol
- Buy cigarettes
- Buy a lotto ticket
- Collect the winnings from your lotto ticket
- Buy a ticket to an R-rated movie
- Pick up concert/sporting tickets at Will Call
- Register your car for the first time
- Get car insurance
- Rent a car
- Serve jury duty
- Apply for a building permit
- Apply for a permit to hold a rally or protest
- Go to one of Michelle Obama’s book signings
- Apply for a fishing license
- Apply for a hunting license
- Apply for a marriage license
- Receive food stamps
- Get a P.O. box
- Register for the military
- Register for college
- Get copies of your academic transcripts
- Take the SAT or the ACT
- Get a library card
Some of these things — like getting a permit for your protest and buying a firearm — go hand-in-hand with freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights. However, you don’t hear anyone crying foul over them.
Turn on the TV, and you’ll hear all about the fights between the federal government and Texas and South Carolina. Listen to the media twist things around, and you’ll end up believing these two states are practically demanding your first-born son in exchange for letting you vote.
But when you look at the FACTS, you’ll see that all Texas and South Carolina want is for people to have to show a photo ID before they can vote. Their laws aren’t all that different from other recent voter ID laws that have passed with the federal government’s blessing.
For example, in New Hampshire, people will have to show a photo ID in order to vote in November. But next year, things get interesting — because that’s when New Hampshire’s list of acceptable photo ID’s gets much shorter. Ironically, the list is more restrictive than the list of approved photo ID’s in Texas’ and South Carolina’s laws — yet the federal government approved New Hampshire’s law without asking any questions.
Why are some states getting the third-degree, while others get a free pass?
For example, another voter ID law just went into effect in Virginia. Now, you can show anything from a photo ID, to your paycheck, to your electric bill to prove who you are. If you don’t have anything that verifies your identity, you’ll get a provisional ballot — and you’ll have to fax or email proof of who you are before your vote can be counted. This law is certainly a lot less strict than what Texas and South Carolina want to do, but it still passed without any questions from the federal government.
Where’s the outcry over this law?
After all, the Justice Department has argued that voter ID laws discriminate against minorities because minorities have a tougher time getting ahold of the necessary ID.
But wouldn’t that argument apply to minorities in every state?
Why isn’t the federal government going after every state that tries to pass a voter ID law?
Seems a little unfair, doesn’t it?
