The Pork Report

POINT

There’s been a lot of hoopla lately about the Supreme Court ruling in favor of allowing states to enact legislation requiring voters to show government-issued identification at the polls when they vote. The thought behind the measure is to prevent voter fraud, but critics argue that since the vast majority of voters without a valid government-issued ID are usually young, old, or in the lower economic brackets the new ID requirement is essentially a poll tax, potentially disenfranchising millions of voters who will not be able to take the time or find the paperwork required to get a valid government-issued ID.

These critics have a point in that it does seem that specific voting blocs will be most affected by these new laws, but it is absolutely crazy to compare the new laws to a poll tax or to suggest that specific voting blocs are being strategically disenfranchised by the new laws. Possessing government-issued identification is not a ridiculous thing to ask of people who wish to participate in government. Government-issued ID is free, takes an hour or two to obtain, and has many uses besides as a requirement to vote. As Supreme Court Justice Stevens notes in the court’s decision, the burden of obtaining a government-issued ID is not appreciably greater than the burden of registering to vote. Anyone who is able to vote will be able to obtain a government-issued ID. It’s free. It basically requires waiting an hour or two on line at PENNDOT. Not a huge deal.

Don’t we want greater transparency and accountability in government? Isn’t that what this is? Do critics realize that they are criticizing a measure that will prevent voter fraud? Critics should not attack the idea behind the bill or the Supreme Court’s decision, which is solid. They should attack the TIMING – which has nothing to do with the Supreme Court or the legislation itself.

The suspicious thing about the ruling is that it comes just a few months before a Presidential election and so if state legislatures enact such legislation in the coming months it will take strong provisions in the bill to make sure that people affected are educated about the issue and that they receive their identification, otherwise many votes would be lost in the shuffle. That’s up to the State Legislatures to do the right thing, and if they didn’t then THAT would be something to criticize, but preventing voter fraud is not.

COUNTERPOINT

If you grew up in the city like I did, you probably didn’t have a pressing need to drive, at least until (if you were fortunate enough to be among the 18% to have degrees) you went to college. And if you, like 1 in 4 Philadelphian’s are living in poverty, the $4 a gallon for gas (to say nothing of auto insurance) is a little too exorbitant to warrant needing a driver’s license. The point is this. For those non-drivers living in the state (typically the young and/or poor) there is new legislation coming down the pipeline that will require presenting ID in addition to your signature upon voting.

Now, I don’t know about you- but I certainly am not the most organized person in the world. I’ve found myself stranded in a Southern town while riding Greyhound because I lost my credit card. And waiting for a cab in the cold, because I forgot to bring driver’s license. I’ve locked my keys in my car so many times that I keep a coat hanger taped to the bottom of my car (sshhhhhh, don’t tell any burglars!) So sure I’ve lost many things in my life…but I’ve never lost my voice.

Well State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wants to change all that. With HB 2519, Rep. Metcalfe has decided that what with those cumbersome and annoying 13th, 16th, 14th, and 26th amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, they has to be SOMEBODY whose voting rights he can infringe upon…GOT IT…The disorganized! Hurrah!!!

-