On Monday, the U.S. Justice Department blocked a proposed voter identification law from taking effect in Texas, saying it violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The measure, approved in May 2011, would have required voters to show photo identification in addition to already stringent voter registration requirements in the state. The DOJ’s move is undoubtedly the correct one, but more must be done to combat these overt conservative efforts to disenfranchise minority voting blocs.
Supporters of S.B. 14, the law in question, say it is necessary to combat voter fraud. This stance is laughable. Voter fraud simply isn’t a problem in the United States; according to New York University Law School’s Brennan Institute for Justice, it is “both irrational and extremely rare.” The real motive here is to keep progressives from voting. For instance: a handgun permit is an acceptable ID for voting, but a university ID is not.
More importantly, S.B. 14 intentionally disenfranchises minority voters in the state. According to Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, “over 600,000 registered voters do not have either a driver’s license or personal identification…[and] a disproportionate share of those registered voters are Hispanic.” Attaining that identification is no easy task. Texas is required to issue a free ID to everyone, but only if the recipient has supporting papers. If they have been lost or never issued, the applicant must pay a $22 fee to obtain the documents, which, under this law, can be correctly construed as a poll tax. Moreover, picking that ID up from the Department of Motor Vehicles is difficult. Only 81 of the 254 counties in Texas have a DMV, and those lacking one are disproportionately Hispanic and low-income. The state has also not proposed any education measure to spread word about the new requirements. All these factors add up to a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Sadly, this is just one of many examples of conservatives voting to curtail minority suffrage. Move than a dozen states have passed laws to impede voting, including requiring birth certificates, limiting early voting, disenfranchising ex-felons, or requiring IDs. Obama’s DOJ has blocked such measures in Florida and South Carolina, but photo ID requirements persist in 12 other states, and 16 require a non-photo ID. Whether these laws are legal or not, they are bad policy. Voter ID legislation is a solution to a nonexistent problem, and each time one is passed fewer people who are entitled to participate in our democratic system are able to do so. Lawmakers should aim to make voting simple and convenient for their constituents. Perhaps then, our nation can begin to raise its abysmal electoral turnout rates. In every case, voter ID laws are not only overtly discriminatory, but highly corrosive to our nation’s democratic ideals.
There are so many things wrong with this article, it’s ridiculous. The main thing I want to point out is the line: “a handgun permit is an acceptable ID for voting, but a university ID is not.” This is obvious. To get a handgun permit, you have to be a citizen and undergo a background check but just because you have a university ID does not mean you are a U.S. citizen. Many people from overseas come to colleges and universities in the U.S. to study and are issued university ID’s, however, they are not eligible to vote. It would be nice if these things were thought through before they were published. Also, in the next paragraph, you say this law would place such a burden on those people who have lost their papers or were never issued them. Well who cares? If you lost your papers then yes, you should pay the $22 fee to get new ones since you are required by federal law to always have proof of citizenship. It is your fault you lost them. If you were never issued them, then it is one of two reasons. One reason is a mistake of the part of the government in which case it is your responsibility to follow up until you get them. The other reason is that you are here illegally and then it doesn’t matter, you shouldn’t be voting anyways. Also, how would this law keep progressives from voting? That part was not explained and made no sense. Therefore, I see no reason why you should be so opposed to this bill since you have no legitimate concerns.