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...