Thursday, July 25, 2013


Okay, so here is the question:

For what type of things should a photo identification be required?

I'll be honest.  It's the whole voter ID question that is raising it for me today, but let's face it, there's a lot of different places where the question could be raised.  Medical care, perhaps?

And the problem with raising the issue over voter ID is that apparently there is a whole lot of other issues at stake.  And I respect that the application of a law could be discriminatory even if the law itself on the face of it is not discriminatory.  If I remember correctly, this is a good legal argument to use in front of the Supreme Court.

BUT, given that we're required to provide a photo ID for just about everything else in life, including leasing a property, banking, cashing a check, obtaining a marriage license, and sometimes even to receive medical care, it seems that someone who does NOT have a valid photo identification at this point in life is missing out on a whole lot more than possibly just voting.

In Canada, a photo-ID is required to vote.

I was shocked, frankly, when I first showed up to vote and wasn't required to provide a photo ID.  And I'm in my 40s.

I think, long-term, a photo identification should be required to vote.  There may be legitimate arguments against requiring photo identification.  And I think we should address these arguments.  In the meantime, however, I think we should provide some sort of step-up system so that we reach that long-term goal, but we address the short-term issues.  For example, if the issue is that the people can't afford to get IDs, let's set up a fund that will help pay for the photo IDs.  Let's allow people to use Medicare cards for the next x number of years, since I admit, often that was enough for some medical care providing.

In a hundred years, perhaps, we'll only need our retinas to provide positive identification...

No comments:

Post a Comment