No

by Tom Koecke

Created on: January 11, 2008   Last Updated: March 19, 2008

Presuming there are qualifications for registering to vote, there is no need for photo identification to be required to receive or cast one's ballot. There is process in place for challenging the validity of registrants, and simple processes for updating registration information. Turning the requirement to show proof of eligibility from one of reasonable process for challenge is contrary to the concepts of freedom, liberty, and justice.

Ballots should be made available to every registered voter either through the mail or at a designated polling place. If there is reason to verify or challenge the validity of the registration, there is process through which the registrant can answer or appeal.

There is an inequity in requiring those who show up to polls to present identification, and allowing mail in ballots without requiring photo identification. If a person shows up at the proper precinct with a voter's registration card, and signs by the name for comparison to the registered signature, it is unfair both to the voters and the pollsters to require photo identification. It violates the principles of freedom by requiring extra duty from some citizens, and it is obviously unjust.

If we were to take one segment of society in consideration of liberty - military personnel who are not stationed in their home states - we run into an almost unsurmountable problem with the concept of requiring photo identification. In many cases, military personnel are allowed to drive with licenses issued from their home states that do not have photo identification. They are allowed to complement the lack of that photo with their government issued military identification. They have the right to vote for representation in the district of their permanent home addresses, despite being stationed elsewhere.

Requiring photo identification to register to vote in addition to the sworn statement made in the registration would make registration cumbersome for military personnel and families stationed elsewhere. It could also pose problems with legitimate registrations from college students attending schools away from home. Requiring photo identification for registration is contrary to the principles of liberty; ironically, with the greatest cost to those who defend our liberty and their families.

There are certainly problems we need to concern ourselves with when it comes to making sure only legitimate votes are cast. However, we do not need to compound the problem by essentially eliminating the right to cast legitimate votes for many in order to catch the few who vote illegally.

Before we worry too deeply about requiring photo identification as a prerequisite to vote, which is suspect in the first place, we should consider what the town of Roy, Washington recently encountered. The little town requires that its elected officials be registered voters, which is a common rule in many jurisdictions. However, that rule did not stop them from electing a mayor whose felony conviction at 18 eliminated her right to vote! Though she claims that she thought her right to vote had been restored, it had not! She did, however, have photo identification that would indicate her right to vote in that district, but did not contain the disqualifying factor that her right to vote had been rescinded with her felony conviction!

Other than that, she did a fine job!

There are bigger problems regarding voting in this country than requiring registered voters to prove who we are. We should always try to eliminate voter fraud, but requiring photo identification to cast one's vote is not only not the answer; it would create bigger problems than we already have!

Learn more about this author, Tom Koecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.