Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg predicted that the extreme Voter ID law in Texas would prevent people from being able to vote. She was absolutely right. This Voter ID law, signed by Governor Rick Perry (TX) in 2011, requires citizens whom intend to vote to show one of seven types of photo identification. Currently the early voting period is going on in Texas. Election officials and even voters have said there have been issues casting ballots due to the strict law. Texans who do not have one of the seven forms of identification, must go to a driver's license office to receive a voting card. This clearly has posed problems for some people. For example, a 45 year old man from Austin named Eric Kennie could not get his card because the birth certificate listed his mother's maiden name. He has never left his house, so Eric would have problems affording it. After all Ginsburg was right, "the law risks denying the right to vote hundreds of thousands."
Personally, I think this is ridiculous. To avoid voter fraud, some form of photo identification should and needs to be required. Otherwise the results could easily be skewed. The Constitution does state that the right to should not be abridged. I certainly do not think it is being abridged at all. It is necessary to ensure there is no fraud whatsoever. One has to show a photo identification to cash a check, go to the doctor's office, and sometimes even pick up one's kid from school. So why exactly would they eliminate the photo identification? I do think that there needs to be a better system for people who cannot afford a card to be able to vote.
Discussion Questions:
1. Is the Voter ID law in Texas too strict? Why or why not?
2. Should voters be required to show a form of photo identification in order to vote at the polls?
3. Do you think that Eric Kennie deserves to receive a card even though he cannot afford it?
No comments:
Post a Comment