@cicerone imposter,
Quote:How many seniors who quit driving years ago still has possession of their driver's license? Give me a break!
Most seniors around here who stop driving do turn their drivers license in and exchange it for the non-driver state ID. People who have a drivers license know what an important and useful source of ID it is, and they realize they need to have an alternate acceptable form of photo ID for many reasons. And obtaining the non-driver photo ID around here is really easy and fairly fast when you turn in your drivers license--it's just a matter of exchanging one for the other.
All senior citizens are not doddering fools, nor are they all unable to handle the other government agencies they have to deal with--Social Security, Medicare, etc. --nor are they all bereft of resources, beyond family support, to assist them with something like obtaining a photo ID, something most of them already have. So I'm just not convinced that many seniors, at all, would have a problem complying with the need to produce a photo ID in order to vote.
I am fully aware of why these Republican lawmakers want these Photo ID Laws--they are trying to reduce voting in segments of the population which traditionally lean toward the Democrats. And the contention that we need these photo IDs because voter fraud is a significant problem at the polls is hogwash. And they also attempt to drum up support in their base by raising the specter of voter fraud--covertly attributing it to corrupt, dishonest Democrats, who would obviously be trying to hide fraud by opposing the photo IDs.
But what disturbs me almost just as much is the hyped-up rhetoric coming from the Democrats in opposing the photo IDs. Throwing around terms like "Jim Crow" and "poll taxes", and trying to wave the red flag of racism is an equally distasteful attempt to rev up the Democratic base, particularly black voters, who might otherwise vote for Obama in less enthusiastic numbers than they did the last time around. This hype is all about getting out the Democratic vote in November. Similarly they threaten seniors that Republicans are trying to take away their vote, just as they want to whittle away at Medicare. And both parties are trying to woo the Hispanic vote, so the Democrats have to instill fear in that group that the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise them.
So I'm not sure that either side is being honest or completely rational in discussing the pros and cons of using photo IDs to establish identity at the polls, and whether this would unfairly exclude some from voting, and whether it is possible to insure that everyone has easy access to obtaining a photo ID so that no group is disadvantaged or hindered from voting due to lack of a photo ID.
Putting the issue of voter fraud aside, I think there is common sense merit in requiring a photo ID in order to vote. We require such an ID for numerous things in our daily lives and these dealings are more difficult if one lacks such a form of ID. And it is precisely those people who currently lack such a form of ID who would benefit the most if it could be made more obtainable for them. So I am not, in principle, opposed to the idea of photo IDs, although there may be no clear justification for them in terms of evidence of voter identity fraud. I see the photo ID as useful for a lot of other reasons, and I'd like to see everyone able to obtain that type of ID. I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.and low income groups, and the voter photo ID card would help others
Pennsylvania is already willing to exempt some groups, like the Amish, from the requirement of a photo ID if it conflicts with religious beliefs. I also think that Pennsylvania is attempting to address some of the objections to the photo ID requirement with its issuance of a voter ID card, which can be obtained at no cost for a low income qualified voter, and without the need to produce additional documentation, like a birth certificate, which might be required to obtain a non-driver state ID from the Penn. DOT. The non driver photo IDs are already available at very nominal and minimal cost to seniors and low income groups, and the new voter photo ID card would benefit those who might otherwise fall through the gaps in trying to obtain the non-driver ID. However, the problem of acquiring such a card, because the logistics of traveling to a DOT office may pose unfair obstacles for some, still remains as a troublesome unresolved issue for me. And, unless ease of geographical access is considerably improved, I would not support the need for a photo ID in order to vote in Pennsylvania--certainly not in the next general election.
I'm interested in seeing the challenge to this law play out in the courts and hearing the arguments presented by the opposition. I have a feeling they will be more accurate and less hysterical than some of the hype being offered up by the Democrats and by some in this thread.
I also think the solution to what these Republican legislatures are trying to accomplish with these voter photo ID laws is for the people who oppose such tactics to become so outraged that they show up at the polls in droves and vote them out of office.
