Update On Voter ID

In my last post I reiterated my opinion that there is no harm - and maybe some good - in requiring voters to have identification.

But hardly had I posted it than I read Courtland Milloy's interesting column, "Obama's Dance Partner Can't Secure Photo ID."  Referring to Virginia McLaurin, the 107-year-old black woman who was recently honored at the White House, Milloy pointed out that Ms. McLaurin, as a result of the recent attention, has receiving invitations to go to New York and Los Angeles, but under current law cannot board an airplane because she lost a photo ID years ago and would likely have trouble replacing it. She was born in South Carolina, delivered by a midwife, and the birthday was recorded in a Bible since lost.  Probably no birth certificate was issued.

The good news for McLaurin:  DC does not require a photo ID to vote.  Also, just today, after this case was publicized, the District of Columbia acted to make it easier for people like her to obtain a photo ID.

But then what about the other case Milloy mentions?  In North Carolina, 86-year-old Reba Miller Bowser presented her birth certificate, social security card, Medicare card, a cable bill and an apartment lease but local officials denied her a photo ID on the grounds that she had no proof that she had changed her maiden name to her married name. 

Here again the ending was happy, if slightly delayed: the North Carolina DMV reconsidered and issued her the required photo ID in time for her to vote in last month's primary.  Yet as her son points out, if the case had not received so much attention in the media, it might not have been resolved so easily.

I stick by my opinion. It seems reasonable to ask voters to present a photo ID card.  But that opinion depends, of course, on one underlying assumption:  that state laws, and state officials, recognize and fairly apply fundamental legislation applicable to civil rights and voting rights. Evidently, there are still some corners of the realm in which that may not be the case. {Yes, in our hearts and minds, we knew this.]

If we can't count on that kind of faithful, professional application of law at the state level, we may have another good argument for moving to a national identification system. 

 

Comments

[PiedType]

Identification in order to vote always seemed to me to be logical and in these days, necessary. You need ID for so many other things. Hard to imagine many people don't already have it. Colorado issues photo IDs that are not driver's licenses for non-drivers who need the ID. My grandkids have them for traveling. I suppose we have a lot of loopholes, though, because although I had to provide documentation and ID to get my drivers license when I got here, I'm now sent mail-in ballots for everything without having to go show my ID to anyone. Easy to see how some of those ballots in the mail could go astray. So while it's now a huge convenience to me, it's not a perfect system. I don't have any ideas about people who are so old they can't produce a birth certificate. I'd never imagined that situation.