Nothing More Than A Poll Tax?

It seems the new Georgia Voter I.D. law is catching some widespread attention.

A private commission trying to restore public confidence in national elections recommended on Monday requiring a free photo ID for voters, drawing opposition from Democrats and some voting rights activists.

Critics suggested that having to acquire the ID cards in order to vote could be an obstacle for minorities, the poor and older Americans and might intimidate some people.

"We believe such a requirement would constitute nothing less than a 21st century poll tax," said a letter from Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and John Lewis, D-Ga. Poll taxes were once used in some states to prevent black citizens from voting.

Former President Carter, a co-chair of the commission, said he was hesitant about the free photo ID proposal at first, but laws passed in some states like Georgia convinced him that a national approach was a better idea. Republican lawmakers in Georgia pushed through legislation that requires a new voter identification card that costs $20 for five years.

"Some states have passed abominable laws that are a disgrace to democracy," Carter said.

Once again, the Associated Press fails to mention the fact that the Georgia Voter Identification card will be provided for free if the applicant cannot afford the fee. It's so convenient how they keep forgetting to mention that important fact.

Abominable laws? A disgrace to democracy? What?

After my last post, I decided to count the number of times (and reasons) I was required to produce photo i.d

Over the course of the last week, I was required to show my i.d. a total of 10 times.

#1 – Wal-Mart – Paying for groceries, the clerk asked to see my photo i.d.
#2 – Gas Station – Paying for gas, the clerk asked to see my photo i.d.
#3 – Corner Store – Paying for milk, the clerk, who I see three times a week, asked to see my photo i.d.
#4 – Gas Station – Paying for cigarettes (not for me), the clerk asked to see my photo i.d.
#5 – Liquor Store – Paying for a bottle of wine (not for me), the clerk asked to see my photo i.d.
#6 – Corner Store – Paying for milk, the clerk asked to see my photo i.d. (yes, same clerk)
#7 – Library – Checking out books, the librarian asked to see my photo i.d.
#8 – Bank – Cashing a check, the teller asked to see my photo i.d. (and took my thumbprint).
#9 – Corner Store – Paying for milk, the clerk asked to see my photo i.d. (yes, same clerk, again)
#10 – School Supply Store – Paying for homeschool supplies, the clerk asked to see my photo i.d.

Now, granted, if I had paid in cash and not with a debit card or check, I would have only been required to show id for #4, #5, #7, and #8, or a total of four times.

Four times, this week alone. That's 208 times (minimum) per year. I cannot buy cigarettes or alcohol without photo i.d. I cannot cash a check or check out a library book without photo i.d.

The truth is, photo i.d. is a requirement in our society. No matter what Jimmy Carter says. Everyone, rich or poor, white or black, must have photo i.d. to survive in today's world.

Let's examine that "disproportionate" group again. You know who I am talking about.

"Minorities, the poor and older Americans".

Minorities, just like everyone else, have bank accounts. They own vehicles. They drive those vehicles. They travel. They smoke. They partake of drink. They, like everyone else, are required to show photo i.d. when cashing a check, buying cigarettes, buying alcohol, entering nightclubs, travelling on airplanes, and everywhere else that "non-minorities" are required to show a photo i.d.

Because they are required to possess a photo i.d. for the reasons listed above, this law will have no adverse affect on anyone simply because they are a minority.

Poor people are very likely to be receiving assistance from the local and state governments. If they are receiving food stamps, welfare, or any other assistance from the state, they are required to show photo i.d. when applying for these benefits, at a minimum. While we can presume many poor people do not own cars, go out partying, or travel on airplanes, but they do need to cash those welfare checks. Also, many of them drink, and many of them smoke.

Because they are required to possess a photo i.d. for the reasons listed above, this law will have no adverse affect on anyone simply because they are poor. If for some reason they have no bank account, receive no assistance from the state, don't drink, and don't smoke, then the state will waive the fee for the voter i.d. card, so again, no adverse affect.

Older Americans receive Social Security, disability, or some other form of pension and are then likely to have a bank account. How do they cash those checks? Many older Americans smoke and/or drink. Some still own vehicles. Some still drive those vehicles. They need medications, lots of them, and boy do they travel. They, like everyone else, will need to show photo i.d. for all of these reasons, just like everyone else.

Because they are required to possess a photo i.d. for the reasons listed above, this law will have no adverse affect on anyone simply because they are "older". If for some reason they have no bank account, they don't receive Social Security (or a pension of any kind), they don't drink, they don't smoke, and they don't travel, you can bet they still need a prescription filled from time to time, and they are required to show photo i.d. to get them filled, just like everyone else.

The bottom line is, banks require photo i.d. as proof of our identify when doing our banking business. Retailers require photo i.d. when we pay by check or credit card, as proof of our identify. Police departments require photo i.d. when we are pulled over, as proof of our identity. Airports require photo i.d. as proof of our identity. There are many more situations that require photo i.d. that I have not even mentioned, as proof of our identity.

I have yet to meet anyone who bitched about having to show photo i.d. while cashing a check and many people actually feel "complimented" when they are "carded" for cigarettes or alcohol. So why is there a problem with voter identification?

Why shouldn't we "guarantee" our vote with proof of our identity? Is our vote, and the right to cast it, less important than any of the other reasons to carry a photo i.d.? I think not, but then again, I am not a Democrat.

Others who carried this story include, Instapundit and Right Voices.

My previous posts about the Georgia Voter I.D. Law:

So What's New
The New Georgia Voting Law
The Georgia Voter ID Bus
The NY Times Is Full Of It