7 of 11

No

Write now Article Tools

There are many arguments both for and against requiring photo identification for prospective voters. Proponents put forth the basic argument that identifying voters allows us to ensure travesties like dead people and illegal aliens altering our polls can never happen. Opponents, however, tout the ever-popular civil libertarian cry of "freedom of privacy," fearing that somehow having someone compare a photo of you before you go into the voting booth will somehow steal your soul, or, at least, your confidential vote.

I for one, find myself in the middle here. It is unfathomable to me that we would allow our most precious institution, the democratic process, to be ever in danger of fraud by not verifying that our voters are legally authorized to. At the same time, photo identification is so 20th century, it belies a mindset that does not appear to realize we have moved far, far beyond mere imagery in the process of personal recognition.

Why not use fingerprint scanning? Retinal identification? DNA-testing? Any of these are far more accurate than photographs, as a person's image can be easily altered or duplicated by talented makeup artists. Of course, on-the-spot DNA testing is unfeasible, as this would require complicated lab equipment and qualified testing personnel at each polling site. Retinal identification would require that every American have retinal scans on file, so this could only be a long-term solution at best.

So we're stuck with fingerprint technology. Nearly every American already has their fingerprints on file, some people (teachers, soldiers, foster parents) have their prints on file at multiple governmental agencies. It would be a relatively simple process to add the prints of the minority of Americans who aren't already on file into the archives, and then to send a fingerprint-recognition computer to each polling site, preloaded with the registered voters of that site.

Opponents to this program will have only the same reactionary fear they have to any attempt to better organize our civilization: the irrational fear of being marginalized. Proponents of the photo method will see that this is an even more effective way of ensuring our security and protecting the sanctity of the democratic process.

To sum up: we are guaranteed the right to vote in secret. However we do not reserve the right for non-citizens and dead people to vote. A system that protects the rights of the individual voter while also protecting our ability to vote altogether must be found. I don't think photo identification is that system.

Learn more about this author, David Clary.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should photo identification be required to vote??
We want to hear your view. Write now!